Sitting of 8 May 2002

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 15 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Tuberculosis (Cattle)
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What recent discussions he has had on the risk of the further spread of tuberculosis in cattle to England.[53143]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Assembly Rural Affairs Minister to discuss a wide range of issues. Policy responsibility for bovine TB in Wales is a matter for my colleagues in the National Assembly, while in England it is the responsibility of Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Ministers and officials in the Assembly and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs maintain close contact on the issue.
    Mr. O'Brien: With more than 6,000 cattle slaughtered in Britain in 2001, 2,000 of which were in Wales, this is a desperately serious issue for the dairy and cattle farmers of my Cheshire constituency, who are in the front line of the battle against the spread of bovine TB from across the border in Wales and the west midlands. Even the Labour—dominated Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has called for Government action. Should not the Minister now stop dithering and put in the resources necessary to combat the massive backlog of TB testing in Wales and England, following the suspension of the badger culling trials because of the disastrous foot and mouth epidemic? Why are the Government weak—kneed and complacent about the issue? They should resume the badger culling trials, vaccination research and the transmission tests.
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman uses 20 words when he could manage with one. Bovine TB is just as likely to
    136
    spread into Wales from England. Indeed, in Montgomeryshire, the type of TB commonly associated with Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and west Gloucestershire is prevalent. Bovine TB is a problem and it has been spreading. My colleagues in the Assembly and in DEFRA are taking the issue seriously, but it is important to stress that it does not pose the same contagious problem as foot and mouth disease. Resources are being put in to catch up with the backlog that the hon. Gentleman mentions, because the veterinary service had to be used to cope with the more immediate problem of foot and mouth. Measures have been put in place to restrict cattle movements and cattle on farms that are being restocked following foot and mouth culling are being tested. Key measures are in place to speed up matters, but it will take time. I admit to the hon. Gentleman that the problem will not be put right overnight.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: There has been a serious outbreak of bovine TB in the Raglan and Llantrisant areas of my constituency and certain farmers have had their stock culled, while others are unable to trade or face serious movement restrictions on their livestock. Will my hon. Friend work with his colleagues in DEFRA and the National Assembly to do everything possible to halt the spread of bovine TB?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, I will certainly do that, and I am aware of the problem in Raglan. Indeed, we have seen recent outbreaks in south Ceredigion, central Carmarthenshire, Montgomery and Denbigh. As I said earlier, resources are being made available to speed up the testing of cattle and I can assure my hon. Friend that colleagues in the Assembly and in DEFRA are wasting no time in doing everything that they can—including providing the resources—to tackle the problem.
    Mr. Greg Knight: The problem of bovine TB is a worrying issue for which the Minister has some responsibility. Is not it the case that Ministers have kicked farmers in the teeth by refusing to claim money from the European Union that would be a great help in addressing the problem? Why have the Government rejected the EU agrimoney package, which amounts to some £72 million? Does the Minister realise that farmers are under siege from all directions, including lower prices, bovine TB and the after—effects of foot and mouth? Now, thanks to his actions, they will be denied European help. The real reason the Government have refused the money is that the Treasury would have to part—finance it. Will the Minister see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him to get out of his office in Whitehall, go to Wales, meet some Welsh farmers and apologise to them?
    Mr. Touhig: The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the concern that we all feel about bovine TB and the impact that foot and mouth disease and other problems have had on the farming industry in the past 12 months. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the European Commission has yet to confirm how much agrimonetary compensation will be made available for the livestock sector. When the amounts have been confirmed, we will consider appropriate cases for payment. Spending on tackling the problem in Wales is now running at about £1.6 million. That shows that the

    137
    Government are putting in resources to cope with the problem. As soon as we get information from the European Commission, we will consider where it might be appropriate to add further compensation.
    Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told me today that a number of instances of TB have been traced to increased movements of animals around the country as a result of restocking and the reopening of animal marts? Is not it likely that badgers are not responsible for the new increase in cases as they stay in single, small habitats, whereas animals are being moved the length and breadth of the country? Should not we return to the position of a few months ago, when the numbers of animal movements were restricted? At that time, farmers were successfully and cheaply selling animals over the internet and by other means. Such methods did not cause suffering to animals, and avoided the extra risk of infection involved in going to animal markets.
    Mr. Touhig: I can tell my hon. Friend that I am given to understand that the most recent outbreak in Denbigh has been among cattle that have just been moved into the area. The Krebs badger culling trials started in 1998, and have been continuing. We expect the results in about 2004. It will then be up to the Government to consider whether those results prove that badgers have been a cause of bovine TB. There is a strong view in the farming community that badgers are responsible, but there are those in animal welfare groups who insist that they are not. Until we have substantive evidence, I cannot comment further.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is getting very noisy. It is only fair to the Minister and those asking the questions that they be heard.

    Health Provision
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on ministerial discussions on the effect of the Budget on health provision in Wales. [53145]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have spoken with the Assembly's Minister for Health and Social Services about the increase to the Welsh block consequential on the increases on Government spending on health announced in the recent Budget. The resulting amount for the block for 2007–08 is some £1.8 billion over the next five years, and I am pleased to say that the Assembly intends to spend the full amount on health in Wales.
    Mr. Wiggin: On 10 April—Hansard, volume 382, columns 3-4—the Secretary of State kindly agreed to ensure that the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales was aware of the terrible bed shortages in Hereford hospital. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he got on in those discussions?
    Mr. Murphy: We are still in correspondence, obviously, with the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services. The hon. Gentleman will know that the movement of patients, especially across mid—Wales, to
    138
    hospitals in Hereford, Shrewsbury and elsewhere is very important. Arrangements are in place to deal with such matters. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, when we receive the result of our correspondence, I shall be back in touch with him.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, in many instances, Wales leads the way. However, given the Budget announcements on health, will he urge the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services to follow the English example and have independent audit and inspection for health services in Wales to ensure complete transparency?
    Mr. Murphy: In both Wales and England, we understand the importance of ensuring that investment goes along with reform. We cannot achieve improvement in the health service unless those two factors go together. I have talked to the First Minister about such matters, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has also talked to the Minister for Health and Social Services. The Assembly Cabinet and the First Minister are, in principle, very content with and relaxed about the idea of ensuring that there should be a proper audit regime. That regime should be proactive, and not necessarily retrospective on its own. These matters will be discussed in the next few months when we deal with the legislation framing the bodies involved, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the principles underlying the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are the same as those that underlie what the Assembly wishes to do.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Secretary of State say what is the logic in devolving health to the National Assembly for Wales and establishing an audit body that is responsible to this House?
    Mr. Murphy: I would have thought that the most important thing is that the patients come first in Wales or England. There is nothing wrong with people in Wales looking at best practice in health trusts in England, comparing notes and seeing what happens. It would be foolish if Wales, a country of 3 million people, did not look across the border to England to see what best practice occurs there. The hon. Gentleman is aware that in other respects, the Assembly is free to do what it wishes. At the end of the day, it is up to the Assembly to decide how best to implement health reform in Wales, but when it sees sensible reform here in England, it should include that as well.
    Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some excellent health care is provided to my constituents by, for example, the Countess of Chester hospital in Chester and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District hospital in Gobowen? The sensible way ahead is for us to work together with English health authorities to bring about the best possible provision of care for my constituents.
    Mr. Murphy: I was conscious of that in my reply to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), when I said the same thing. There is an important link between

    139
    English health trusts on the border and Welsh health trusts. It is important that we learn from each other, and that applies in north Wales as much as in south Wales.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: In recent days, we have learned the shocking news that patients heading for the accident and emergency unit at the Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli after 5 o'clock were diverted to other hospitals at Swansea and Carmarthen, miles away, because of a lack of anaesthetists, and that patients in need of life—saving pacemaker operations have to wait longer in Wales than those with a similar need in Poland because of a lack of heart specialists in Wales. Are the Government to blame or is the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: I would have thought that the Conservative party was to blame as well. [Interruption]. Tory Members hold up five fingers, but it was 20 years of Tory Government that led to the underfunding of the national health service.
    Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to point, as the Western Mail did yesterday, to those two distressing stories. Of course it is important to address those issues. As we heard in the previous exchange, health matters are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, which has to deal with them as it thinks best. However, things are not as bad as the hon. Gentleman says. Only a week or two ago, the Assembly met its target that no patient should wait more than 12 months for heart surgery. More than 400 extra doctors and 500 extra nurses are being trained this year, and by 2004, more than 4,300 nurses, midwives and health visitors will be coming out of training. Of course it will take time. The Government have given the National Assembly for Wales the biggest increase ever in public spending on the health service. The Assembly itself will carry out reforms. Between the Assembly and the Government, we will have the best health service in the world.
    Mr. Evans: Part of the problem is that we have heard all this before. When the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State for Health, he said:
    "waiting lists are rather like a supertanker. It will take time to slow them down, to stop them, to turn them round, but turn them round we will."—[Official Report, 17 November 1997; Vol. 301, c.35.]
    Since then, the tanker has sunk. In Wales, up to March 2002, the number of patients waiting between 12 and 18 months for a first out—patient appointment had risen by 69 per cent., the number of those waiting more than 18 months is up by 118 per cent and there is a nine—year waiting list for children needing non—cosmetic plastic surgery, yet Government expenditure on the NHS in Wales is £102 more per person than in England. When will the Government ditch the spin, realise that patients will get treatment not through promises but through action, and deliver on an improved health service for the people of Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the national health service in Wales will receive an extra £2 billion in five years' time. At present, the Assembly spends just over £3 billion on the health service. In five years' time, the figure will be nearly £6 billion. Of course we are putting the investment in, but the hon. Gentleman knows that to ensure that we achieve delivery and
    140
    improvement, we have to reform the health service. Yet he and his colleagues voted against the reforms of the national health service in Wales in this Chamber some months ago. He cannot have it both ways. When will he tell us what proposals his party has to improve the health service in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Ben Chapman: When he last had discussions with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the aerospace industry in north Wales. [53146]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues, including the aerospace industry in Wales.
    As I said in reply to a similar question from my hon. Friend on 10 April, I recognise that prospects for the aerospace industry in north Wales and my hon. Friend's constituency are underpinned by the continued success of Airbus at Broughton. I continue to believe that the good working relationship between the management and trade unions at Broughton are vital to the success of that project.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that Airbus at Broughton, where many of my constituents work, along with other parts of the aerospace industry, could have faced problematic times post—11 September. Can he assure me that he is doing all that he can to provide continuing long—term support to the site and to the industry, and that he will bring pressure to bear on the Ministry of Defence to advance the orders for the A340 air tanker to bring further work to the site?
    Mr. Touhig: I know well my hon. Friend's commitment to the success of Broughton, and I am sure that he will welcome the good news of orders for the A340 from South African Airways and from Virgin. I take note of his point about the Ministry of Defence and the A340 air tanker, and I shall bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware of the creation on 26 March this year of Aerospace Wales, which represents the £2 billion a year turnover and 20,000 jobs that the aerospace industry in Wales provides? Would he be willing to meet a cross—party delegation of MPs, Assembly Members and interested parties to talk about developing a coherent strategy and creating a brand for Aerospace Wales, and to discuss a coherent strategy for airports in Wales, which are badly in need of development?
    Mr. Touhig: As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am conscious of the important impact of the aerospace industry throughout Wales. Indeed, it is a very big employer in my constituency and in adjoining constituencies. I would be happy to meet him and the group that he mentions, because it is important that we are all seen to be pulling together to ensure, after 11 September, that the aerospace industry is a success

    141
    story. We have a great story to tell in Wales and a good work force. Investment is going in, and let us all pull together to make sure that the industry succeeds.
    Mr. John Smith: I, too, welcome the recent launch of Aerospace Wales in my constituency, which combines the manufacturing base in the north with the repair and servicing cluster of industries in the south. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the time to invest in aerospace training skills in colleges such as Barry college in my constituency, not to cut back on capacity?
    Mr. Touhig: I know of my hon. Friend's support for the aerospace industry, and I agree with the point that he makes. I recently met in London a deputation of trade unionists from my area. They are passionately in favour of their company investing in reskilling and upskilling the work force so that it can meet the growing technological demands that the industry will face. I shall certainly do all that I can, working with colleagues in the Assembly and with Ministers to ensure that that is a success, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's college in Barry will make a contribution to that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the aerospace industry is not only United Kingdom—wide, but an international business? BAE Systems, the main player in the aerospace industry in the UK, is internationally based.
    Although I agree with the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) that in the present difficult climate the Ministry of Defence should, where possible, develop projects to guarantee a skilled work force, does the Minister accept that there is a duty and responsibility on Government to minimise additional business costs?
    Mr. Touhig: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Government stand on their record, which is unparalleled.
    I agree that it is important for all arms of Government, especially the Ministry of Defence, to play a part. I have no doubt that it will do so. Certainly, in Wales the MOD has played an important role in the development of the aerospace industry, especially as regards recent announcements about RAF St. Athan. This is an issue that can unite all hon. Members, and we are all working together to the same end.

    Economy
    Mr. Wayne David: What discussions he has had with the Treasury as to the likely impact of measures recently announced in the Budget to improve the performance of the Welsh economy. [53147]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a range of issues, including, of course, the Welsh economy. The Budget included a number of measures that will give a boost to the Welsh economy, including a 0 per cent. corporation tax starting rate, a 1 per cent. corporation tax cut for all small firms, research and development tax breaks for larger firms, further simplification of VAT for small firms and other
    142
    modernising tax reforms. I am also pleased to note that Wales is posting the fastest fall in unemployment of any region or country in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. There can be no doubt that the Budget has been a powerful stimulus to the development of the Welsh economy. Unemployment in Wales is indeed at an all—time low, but there are still areas of high unemployment, especially at the heads of the valleys in south Wales. Will my right hon. Friend give an indication and a commitment that the Government will continue to tackle those high rates of unemployment?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I shall give that commitment. I represent a valley constituency myself and understand what my hon. Friend is saying. He is aware that the Assembly, as well as the Government, is doing its best to regenerate our south Wales valleys. In his constituency, for example, there have been 18 new inward investment projects, creating more than 1,000 jobs and safeguarding more than 100 jobs. The unemployment rate in his constituency has dropped, which is part of the general picture in Wales and means that unemployment in Wales is the lowest that it has been for 27 years— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal again to the House to come to order. It is far too noisy.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Last Thursday, the Secretary of State told the House that inward investment was vital to the performance of the economy in Wales. Would he, therefore, care to comment on the fact that, as a proportion of the UK total, inward investment in Wales has collapsed from 19 per cent. in 1991 to only 11 per cent. last year? What has gone wrong?
    Mr. Murphy: I remember that the hon. Gentleman took part in the debate on Welsh matters last Thursday. He rightly pointed out the importance of indigenous firms and how they can help to regenerate the Welsh economy. However, I also point out to him that, this very year, the Assembly has the highest level of regional selective assistance grants for seven years; £130 million of RSA has gone into various companies; and 267 investment projects in Wales have benefited from that. There is a combination of two things: we need inward investment and we need to help indigenous industry. That is why, as I said earlier, more people are in work in Wales than at this time last year, despite the loss of manufacturing jobs.
    Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that in Blaenau Gwent we have some of the greatest poverty in Wales, with some of the highest unemployment and the lowest wages. He will also be aware that, in the next few weeks, Corns will finally close. When he meets the First Secretary will he ensure that the public moneys that he has just mentioned, and which are so generous this year, are directed to those areas in Wales where poverty is greatest, and are not lost, as is often the case, in Cardiff in general and Cardiff bay in particular?
    Mr. Murphy: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's views on these matters. I believe that we can do both in Wales: we can see that the regeneration of our capital city goes ahead, while ensuring that we put proper

    143
    resources into Blaenau Gwent and the other south Wales valleys. Only a Labour Government, working with a Labour Assembly, can do that.

    Student Debt
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on student debt in Wales. [53148]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including student finance.
    Mr. Swire: Student debt has doubled since Labour came to power in Wales. Since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, and with the support of the Liberal Democrats, the situation has deteriorated further. Is that appalling record the fault of the Welsh Assembly or is it something for which the Government are prepared to take the blame?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that when his party was in power there was a considerable problem of student debt. We have reformed the whole system of student loans, making it much easier for students to access funds, and we have related the repayment to their earnings. The Government, working in partnership with the National Assembly, are aiming at their target, which is to increase the number of people entering higher education. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported never succeeded in doing that; we are going to achieve it. We will achieve it quite soon.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Middle East
    Jeremy Corbyn: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Israel. [53173]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have had many discussions with Prime Minister Sharon over the past weeks and months.
    Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that the Prime Minister would join me in condemning both the suicide bombing attacks that have taken place on Israel and the attacks on the Palestinian people by the Israeli armed forces. Will he, however, make it clear to Prime Minister Sharon that the only way to bring about a long—term, realistic peace in the region is for Israel to withdraw from Palestine; to accept United Nations resolutions on Palestinian self—determination; to allow an independent United Nations investigation into the massacres of Jenin; and to recognise a Palestinian state? Until that position has been achieved, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British Government cease all arms sales to Israel?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in condemning totally the appalling
    144
    outrage that has happened in Israel, in which 16 innocent people have lost their lives. That takes the total, incidentally, of Israeli civilians who have been killed since the beginning of March to 100. And for those people who sometimes do not understand the strength and depth of the feeling in Israel, I hope that this latest outrage reminds them of the precise extent of the pressure that Israel and Israeli people are under. At the same time, of course it is right, as my hon. Friend points out, that many Palestinians—many hundreds of Palestinians—too have lost their lives
    There has been a strong statement of condemnation from the Palestinian Authority about this latest terrorist attack. But it needs more than simply a strong statement. There must also be action. And I want to make it clear that, as far as we are concerned, we the British Government—and, I hope, the wider international community—are prepared to work with the Palestinian Authority in any way that is possible, in order to ensure that they have the proper security apparatus that they require and that that is properly enforced throughout the Palestinian Authority, because we cannot have a situation where every time it seems as if there is some hope of political progress, that progress is immediately derailed by a terrorist attack.
    Unless the fate of any political process is to be in the hands of the latest suicide bomber, we must do more than ensure that a political process can be restarted properly; the most immediate task now is to ensure that we have in place proper security measures within the Palestinian Authority that allow those in Israel some confidence that, if they start to talk, they will not carry on suffering these appalling outrages, for which there can be absolutely no justification whatever.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman of course express, when he next meets Mr. Sharon, the sympathy of the entire House for the latest outrage that has been perpetrated in Israel? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say how pleased we are that Mr. Sharon does seem to be moving towards some dialogue, and that we all hope that that will lead to peace within Israel?
    However, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether he has seen copies of the documents that were captured by the Israelis in Ramallah, which clearly appear to implicate Mr. Arafat himself in the funding and organisation of these terrorist atrocities? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, on that basis, Mr. Arafat can form part of any further discussions?
    The Prime Minister: We will of course study the documentation that has been provided by the Israeli Government. I believe, though, that what is important is that we have some means of ensuring that the claims about the Palestinian Authority and their complicity in acts of terrorism are properly adjudicated upon, so that we do not have claim and counter—claim every time one of these terrorist attacks occurs.
    There is no doubt at all, therefore, that the immediate task—because otherwise I believe that political progress is impossible—is to try to find some way of ensuring that there is a verifiable security apparatus in place inside the Palestinian Authority and their territories. If that cannot be done, it is very difficult for Israel to negotiate, if it

    145
    believes that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are indeed complicit in terrorism. On the other hand, if the condemnation by the Palestinian Authority is genuine, we have indeed a true tragedy, where we cannot make any political progress, and where each time one of these terrorist attacks occurs, whatever progress there is immediately dissipates. We have to find a way through that.
    In relation to the lifting of the siege of Ramallah, we have tried as a Government to play our part in providing some means of ensuring that, if people are alleged terrorists, they are properly and verifiably under lock and key. But we need to make sure that we build on that and try to put the same type of process in place right across the Palestinian Authority; otherwise we will be faced with this situation time and again. In the end, the casualties are clear: there are innocent Israeli civilians dying in very large number, and there are innocent Palestinian civilians dying as well. It is a tragedy that is now pretty much a catastrophe, not just for that region, but for the world.

    Engagements
    Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 May. [53174]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mullin: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the case of a 14—year—old boy in Sunderland who was shot in the back last week by an out—of—control youth with an air weapon and to the fact that the doctors are unable to remove the pellet from his back? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is only the latest in a series of incidents involving air weapons and out—of—control youths? Does he think that the time has come for us to take a look at the regulation of air weapons?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this area and his work in it, too. I should perhaps point out that, under the Firearms Act, it is already an offence to give an air weapon to a person under 14 or to sell one to a person under 17. It is also an offence for anyone to have a loaded air weapon in public. As my hon. Friend will know, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has, in conjunction with the police, launched its own campaign on air weapon safety. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a serious and growing problem, and in the context of doing everything we can to bear down on the issue of street crime and antisocial behaviour, we will certainly look urgently to see what more is required.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister unequivocally in his comments on the tragedy today and condemn those who have perpetrated that outrage? May I also join him, without any gap whatever, in saying that the important need is for short—term security for those in Israel and for a settlement at the earliest opportunity?
    146
    On a more domestic issue, though, the Transport Secretary, with characteristic candour, writing a little while ago, said to his constituents that, among other things,
    "an honest, open style have made Stephen Byers a respected representative."
    Does the Prime Minister agree with that characteristic honesty?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I do.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, the Prime Minister might like to cast his mind back to February, when the Transport Secretary made a statement to the House. I remind him that it was entitled, "Resignation of Martin Sixsmith". Only yesterday, the Transport Secretary's own Department issued a statement saying,
    "The Department accept that Martin Sixsmith … did not resign".
    Why is the Transport Secretary therefore still in his job?
    The Prime Minister: Because I do not accept that people were misled at all. [Interruption.] The facts were set out in Sir Richard Mottram's statement of 25 February, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement of 26 February. It was clear that the Secretary of State had been told that Mr. Sixsmith had agreed to resign. It was equally clear that Mr. Sixsmith disputed that he had resigned. Therefore, the parties were not in agreement. Therefore, there had to be a negotiation. All of that was actually set out in Sir Richard's statement of 25 February and repeated by the Secretary of State on 26 February. Terms have now been agreed, and he has indeed departed.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh what a wondrous web we weave when first we practise to deceive. Let me remind the Prime Minister what the Transport Secretary actually said:
    "The statement that I have made … reflects accurately the sequence of events that have taken place".
    He also said:
    "I will be held to account for the comments that I make in the House".—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 574.]
    We now learn that Mr. Sixsmith did not resign; he remained a salaried employee in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The taxpayer will have to pay £200,000 to secure his release. Before he was elected, the Prime Minister said, "No more lies." Why has he not dismissed the Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: For the simple reason that, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the agreed statement, what blows a hole in his argument is that it makes it clear that any dispute with Mr. Sixsmith was in good faith. The right hon. Gentleman cannot rely on the agreed statement between the Department and Mr. Sixsmith on the one hand and dispute it on the other. It had been agreed in good faith, and, as the Secretary of State made clear on 26 February, Mr. Sixsmith was to leave on terms to be agreed. Those terms have now been agreed, and the truthful point is that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise all these issues is that he has nothing to say about the serious issues of the day.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I really do think that the Prime Minister is keeping very bad company these days.

    147
    Most people out there know that they would have been dismissed from their jobs for half of what the Transport Secretary has done. There is a different rule for this Government, however. I remind the Prime Minister that he said:
    "This is your chance to get rid of the … lies, broken promises and sleaze … Please vote for Stephen Byers on 1 May."
    I agree. It is an opportunity to get rid of the lies and broken promises: he should dismiss the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions right now.
    The Prime Minister: It does not surprise me that, yet again, what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to raise any issue other than those that matter to people. As I said, both sides accept that any misunderstanding was in good faith. I suggest that we get on and debate the real issues concerning the people of this country—transport, health, schools, crime and the economy. On all those issues, of course, he has nothing whatever to say.
    David Taylor: One more missed deadline, and still the Wembley project stumbles on. After this extra time, will there be a penalty shoot—out between Birmingham, Coventry and London? What does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have to say about the continuing debacle to the 85 per cent. of English football fans who live outside London? Does not this show that our party is still too susceptible to the metropolitan elite? Being told, "All's well apart from the finance," is like asking, "Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the opera?"
    The Prime Minister: First, let me thank my hon. Friend for that question. Secondly, there are those who make a perfectly good case for siting the national stadium in Birmingham, in Coventry or in other parts of the UK—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bolsover.
    The Prime Minister: Or, indeed, in Bolsover. But in the end, these are decisions for the Football Association. The only way that the Government can take this decision ourselves is if we end up financing the whole project. We do not intend to do that. It is therefore a decision for the FA. It has agreed the funding in principle, and it should be allowed to get on with that. The point that my hon. Friend makes about the siting of the stadium may be perfectly reasonable, but it is not a decision for the Government. It is for the FA, and it should be left with the FA.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On 27 February, the Prime Minister replied to me here that he retained full confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions because of his statement to the House on the previous afternoon. We now know that a vital aspect of that statement is materially inaccurate. Will he now explain to me, under his terms, how he still retains full confidence?
    The Prime Minister: I gave the answer a moment ago. When the Opposition were all crowing about the agreed statement that had been made between Mr. Sixsmith and the Department, I pointed out that the statement makes it perfectly clear that any misunderstanding was in good
    148
    faith and, therefore, the allegation that somehow the Secretary of State had misled Members of the House was wrong.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The reason for the statement from the Transport Secretary to which the Prime Minister referred was to correct the misleading impression that the Transport Secretary had given in an earlier television interview. How many goes does the Transport Secretary get? The Prime Minister is very fond of, "Three strikes and you're out." Should the Transport Secretary not be out?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have already given.
    Tony Cunningham: I recently met members of my local mountain rescue teams. This year is the International Year—[Interruption.] Obviously, there are supporters of my mountain rescue teams on the Opposition Benches. This year, the teams are busy promoting the international year of the mountain. Bearing in mind that many areas in mountain regions suffered badly as a result of foot and mouth, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the skill and courage not only of the mountain rescue teams in my constituency—the Keswick and Cockermouth mountain rescue teams—but mountain rescue teams throughout Britain, who I am sure the whole House will agree do an absolutely fantastic job?
    The Prime Minister: They do, indeed. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents on all the work that is done in Cumbria on mountaineering. I had an opportunity to see that myself last July when I visited the national mountaineering exhibition at Rheged. I remember it very well, and I was immensely impressed by the work that the teams do. I am sure that they will make a very valuable contribution to the United Nations international year of the mountain.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If the misunderstanding referred to earlier was in good faith, will the Prime Minister authorise the expenditure of public money to enable the Secretary of State for Transport to sue for defamation against The Daily Telegraph, which this morning described him as
    "a liar, unfit for office in any government department"?
    The Prime Minister: For the precise reasons that I gave, those allegations are false. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes on to deal with the issues that really concern the people of this country. I note that, when the Leader of the Opposition had the chance to ask me about transport, he did not ask one single thing about the performance of transport, but merely went on with this issue, with which I have already dealt.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: In my constituency, a group of women have formed Mothers against Drugs, which is an admirable organisation that fights all forms of drugs, drug taking and drug pushing. However, a young mother came to see me with a despicable product known as "freekee drops", which her five—year—old had purchased from an ice cream van and

    149
    with which the child had then mimicked the actions involved in taking drugs. The drops come in a packet shaped like a syringe.
    Every Member in the House has a responsibility to drive the product from shops in the United Kingdom. Moreover, given the fact that the drops are produced in Spain and that the Spanish hold the presidency of the European Union, will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with his counterpart in Spain to get him to cease the production of this product? If my right hon. Friend cannot do that, will he at the very least embarrass the importers into not stocking the product on the shelves in their shops?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that this issue has been raised with the trading standards agency in Glasgow, where the issue first came to people's notice, and with the Food Standards Agency. I shall certainly look into the issue and get back to my hon. Friend. I understand the problem to which he draws attention. In particular, we must make sure that no young person is tempted into drugs through this route. That would obviously be wholly wrong and wholly inconsistent with everything else that we are trying to do.
    Bob Russell: The award of the Queen's Jubilee medal to members of Her Majesty's armed forces is welcome. However, is the Prime Minister aware that the Retired Officers Corps seems to have been overlooked? Given that many of those men and women have served upwards of 30 years and that they still serve Queen and country—often wearing uniform in military bases—will he use his influence to ensure that members of the Retired Officers Corps receive the Queen's Jubilee medal?
    The Prime Minister: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that members of the armed forces who retire are no longer serving members and become civil servants. That is the technical reason for the decision. I know that not many people are in those retired officer grades and it is worth looking into. However, the problem is whether there would be a read—across into other areas and instead of taking account of one very exceptional case, we end up having to take account of many other exceptional cases too. If I may, I will look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tom Harris: I welcome the Government's commitment to making parents accept responsibility for their children's behaviour. However, can the Prime Minister assure the House that any proposals to penalise parents will not disproportionately affect the poorest households while allowing better—off parents to escape relatively scot free?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that any proposal must be neutral in terms of the family's income. It is a question not of whether the family is middle class, poor or wealthy but of whether the parents have failed to exercise proper responsibility in respect of antisocial behaviour and truancy. I agree that we must ensure that the measures we take bear down on any families, irrespective of their level of income, who are allowing the situation to continue. My hon. Friend will know that there is much
    150
    support, right across the country, for ensuring that we bear down in every way that we can on the menace of antisocial behaviour in our communities which causes so much needless distress.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister think it right that NHS patients waiting for tests for illnesses such as cancer or heart disease should be excluded from the official waiting list figures as they are right now?
    The Prime Minister: I think the NHS waiting list figures should be the same under this Government as they were under the last Government and, as far as I am aware, they are exactly the same. We are applying the same tests in exactly the same way as the previous Government, which is what should happen.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, the National Audit Office made it quite clear that they are not the same, so let us get back to the facts. Some 250,000 people are waiting for angiograms, scans, endoscopies and body scans. The King's Fund says that, if anything, that is an underestimate. We know that hospitals up and down the country already collect those data, so why does not the Prime Minister simply answer this question: why does he not instruct his Health Secretary to include those people on the waiting lists as they should be?
    The Prime Minister: Because the waiting list figures are done in precisely the same way as they always have been done. Of course I accept that people are waiting for treatment, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are now something like 25 per cent. more heart operations every year; there are 40 per cent. more cardiologists, and 20 per cent. more cancer consultants; and more than 90 per cent. of people with suspected cancer who are urgently referred by their GP see a consultant within two weeks, as opposed to just over 60 per cent. when we came to power. In addition, as regards the in—patient waiting list, virtually every single indicator is now in the right direction.
    I agree entirely that much more needs to be done, and as we are on the subject of policy at long last, let us ask the right hon. Gentleman what he would do. Our response to the problem is to invest in the national health service. We want to see more money invested in the health service—more consultants, more doctors, more nurses and more equipment. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us what he wants to see?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the subject of money, has my right hon. Friend had a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past few days to ensure, as he said a little earlier, that everyone carries the same burden? Will the Chancellor introduce rules to change the Tories' 1993 Act that exempted certain people from having to pay inheritance tax? Will he bring the royal family into the net, in jubilee year?
    The Prime Minister: Just for a moment there, I thought that that was going to be a helpful question.

    151
    I am sure that the Chancellor has heard what my hon. Friend said, but I do not think that he will have anything to comment at this stage.
    Mr. Simon Burns: On the question of money again, does the Prime Minister care to reflect on a parliamentary written answer that he gave me on 10 April? Can he explain to the House why last year the Department of Health spent £93,000 on entertainment when the combined budget of No. 10 and Chequers was £21,000 less?
    The Prime Minister: If anything really indicates the state of the Tory party, it is that question. I am sorry, I do not have a detailed record of the entertainment budget either of the Department of Health or of Downing street or Chequers, but I tell the House what I do have—I have a plan to get money into the NHS to improve the service for people. The fact that the hon. Gentleman used to ask me about how bad the health service was in his area but is now unable to do so is an indication of the progress being made.
    Jim Knight: In the last week, I have seen for myself in my constituency the success of drug treatment and testing orders, referral orders and the youth offending team, but in places such as Swanage and Portland, antisocial behaviour continues, along with complaints about the cost and bureaucracy of implementing antisocial behaviour orders. Is the Prime Minister confident that local authorities and the police have the tools necessary to deal with this scourge in our community?
    The Prime Minister: Drug treatment and testing orders are a very important weapon in the hands of the courts which give people a very clear choice: if they repeatedly commit offences and are on drugs, they can either go to prison or take proper drug treatment. I have found from talking to magistrates around the country that those orders have been very successful where they have been applied; however, we need to start to extend the concept so that we make sure that where people who are drug addicts are charged with offences and have a criminal record, they also, if possible, receive drug treatment. Otherwise, they will be back out on the streets committing the same types of offences.
    Antisocial behaviour orders have been successful where they have been applied, but we need to ensure that there are more of them. The Home Secretary is in the process of making sure that we slim down the bureaucracy associated with them, and it is important that they are seen as one of a range of measures to deal with the menace of antisocial behaviour. I am only sorry that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats are supporting us on these measures.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: Why will the Prime Minister not commit to deliver to the people of my constituency the same standards of health care that people in other European countries routinely experience?
    The Prime Minister: It is at about this time that one needs a planted question, I always feel.
    That is exactly what we are working on: we are trying to get money into the NHS, which is why we now have more doctors, nurses and consultants, why waiting lists are falling and why new hospitals are being built—they are being built now. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the NHS has received in the region of £98 million extra. With great respect to him, I think that his was an excellent question. He is right; that is precisely what we have to do, and I only wait for the moment when he starts to cross the Floor.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for their visit to Belfast last Thursday. I very much welcome the investment and reform initiative that further consolidates the new institutions in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the formal agreement between the Police Service for Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland, which will facilitate the pursuit of terrorists and organised criminals? Will he, after 17 May—the date of the election in the Republic—have further urgent talks with the new Government of the Republic with a view to implementing fully outstanding matters from the Good Friday agreement: the north—south parliamentary forum, the north—south consultancy forum and the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland? Will he undertake to pursue those vigorously?
    The Prime Minister: We will of course pursue all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. The work that the Northern Ireland Policing Board has already done is remarkable. Although there is great concern in Northern Ireland at present—I am sure there is—for understandable and obvious reasons, there is a clear need to demonstrate clearly on behalf of all parties associated with paramilitary organisations that they have indeed given up violence for good, properly and totally. The agreement reached and announced last week by myself and the Chancellor, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, indicates the degree of progress that can be made when the political process is continuing and people have a chance to lead their lives in some sort of normality. I still believe, whatever the problems, that we have to carry on making progress, and I can certainly provide an assurance that we will do everything that we can to implement the remaining stages of the Good Friday agreement.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised in the House the matter of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order.
Mr. Forth: I raised the matter of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who has just scuttled out of the Chamber. He was in the Tea Room earlier—a sure sign that he must be in trouble—and he has just sat through Prime Minister's questions in the Chamber. However, the House has not been able to hold him to account for what in the press today has been a humiliation not just for him, but potentially for the House.
Mr. Speaker, how long are you or we going to allow the matter to go unresolved while everybody in the country knows that something has gone badly wrong in the relationship between Ministers and the House of Commons? "Erskine May" is clear, as is the ministerial code. Can you advise me on what we can do to bring to account a Secretary of State whom everybody in the land believes is being dishonest with the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman feels that there has been a contempt, he must write to me. If he wants further advice, I remind him that on some occasions when I need advice, I go to him; he knows his way round the rules of the House and well knows how to bring a Minister to account. I urge him to look at his own experience.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring another Minister to account on an issue that is rather less serious, but nevertheless serious enough. Yesterday, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who is in the Chamber—I told her that I was going to raise this point of order—a question about community or cottage hospitals in Lichfield. Replying to my supplementary question, she may have inadvertently misled the House on two points. First, she said that there would be
"52 in—patient beds, rehabilitation facilities, out—patient, diagnostics and X-ray equipment, a pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, a renal satellite dialysis unit and, I hope, a maternity unit—all under Labour."
However, we have those already. In fact, the plans for the new hospital simply provide for them, but not other existing services, so there will be a reduction. Far more seriously, however, the Under-Secretary went on to say:
"I am pleased that on his website he said that the Budget was good for the NHS."—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 4.]
The Under-Secretary left it like that, but are her remarks honourable, Mr. Speaker, when they mislead the House? In fact, my website says:
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer is gambling that the Government will finally be able to reverse the downward trend in the NHS services … It's a good budget for the NHS—if only it works. But even by 2007, the Government will still be paying less than Germany or other countries pay for their health services which operate more efficiently."
154
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Lady quoted selectively and misled the House. Perhaps everyone should look at www.michael.fabricant.mp.co.uk to learn the truth of the matter.
Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 26 February at column 574 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions:
"Will the Secretary of State say whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith was a civil servant in his Department on 22 February?"
He answered:
"As I said earlier, Martin Sixsmith offered his resignation, which was accepted, on 15 February."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 574.]
How can the Secretary of State stand by the statement that he made to the House of Commons?
Mr. Andrew MacKay rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer. I am not responsible for the Minister's replies; therefore I cannot be drawn into the argument through points of order.
Mr. MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, like all of us, are responsible for not bringing the House into disrepute. Outside in the country, the fact that a Secretary of State has misled the House in a major statement and has not been called to account at the Dispatch Box has brought the House into disrepute today. Many of us would like to know what is going to happen.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot add to my previous statement on the matter.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not there an honourable custom in the House that if a right hon. or hon. Member inadvertently misleads the House, they seek to make a personal statement? If the Secretary of State should ask you for permission to make a personal statement, would you grant it?
Mr. Speaker: I would look at the matter.
Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 21 March, in a written question, I asked the Home Secretary about the abolition of the special vouchers scheme. When last week—six weeks later—I had not received a reply, I tabled a further written question asking when I might receive a reply. Yesterday I received a response from the Minister which stated: "I will reply as soon as possible." It is now seven weeks since I tabled my original question. Can you give some guidance to me and to Ministers about acceptable time frames for responding to hon. Members' inquiries?
Mr. Speaker: I will look into the hon. Gentleman's complaint.

Performance of Private Hospitals
3.37 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require private hospitals to publish independently audited information on clinical performance and on complaints from patients on the same basis as that required of NHS hospitals.
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a children's tea party with my son when I started talking to Peter Touche, who was there with his twin sons, Charles and Alexander. The Bill is inspired by the tragic case of their mother, Laura Touche, who died three years ago of a brain haemorrhage after giving birth to the twins at the private Portland hospital in London.
In January this year, a jury inquest found that Laura had died of
"natural causes contributed to by neglect".
The natural causes included high blood pressure, which led to the brain haemorrhage; the neglect referred to the fact that no basic medical checks were carried out by staff at the Portland hospital for two and a half hours after her caesarean operation. It was only when Laura herself alerted medical staff to the fact that she was feeling very unwell that anyone realised that something was wrong. She was rushed to a specialist NHS neurology hospital, but never recovered.
I know from my own son's recent birth at St. Mary's, Paddington, after caesarean section, that in the NHS a mother's blood pressure is checked regularly. It is checked every 15 minutes for the first hour after birth, every 30 minutes for the second hour, then hourly for the next three hours. In the country's leading private hospital, Laura's blood pressure was not checked at all. If that most basic of medical procedures had taken place, she may well have been alive today, and her children, Charles and Alexander, would have their mother.
But for the courage and determination of Laura's husband, Peter, the truth would never have been known. It has taken a three—year legal battle in the High Court and the Court of Appeal for the full story of Laura's neglect at the Portland hospital to emerge. It is sometimes said that individual cases make bad law, but Laura's death and her husband's struggle to uncover the truth reveal a more endemic culture of secrecy in many private hospitals, and it is that culture which my Bill seeks to attack.
Of course, cases of medical accidents and neglect sadly happen in all kinds of hospitals—NHS and private. One has only to look at the NHS's annual litigation bill to know that. It is often difficult for patients and their relations to get to the truth, regardless of where they are treated. A constituent of mine is still trying to find out what happened to the retained organs of her son, who died 30 years ago in an NHS hospital.
I hope that in the NHS at least, public scrutiny is at last prising open the closed, clam—like world of the medical profession, where few admit to a mistake and no one rats on a colleague. The inquiries at the Bristol royal infirmary in Alder Hey have certainly helped; so too has the requirement for NHS trusts to publish data on how they perform in relation to, for instance, waiting times, trolley waits, cancelled operations, hospital cleanliness, postoperative deaths and emergency readmissions.
156
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen how the performance data—especially on such things as waiting lists—can be distorted and fiddled, often under intense political pressure. I hope that the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be sufficiently robust and independent to ensure that that no longer happens. Nevertheless, I am happy to commend the Government on the pressure that they have put on NHS trusts to be open about their performance. It must be good for patients and for taxpayers that NHS trusts find it more and more difficult to sweep their problems under the carpet.
With the Bill I want to extend that pressure to the private medical sector, where there are not the same incentives to be open and transparent. The website of the pressure group Action for the Proper Regulation of Private Hospitals, to whose work I pay tribute, is full of examples. The problem is more general, however. In evidence to the Select Committee on Health three years ago, the Independent Healthcare Association said:
"there is frequently an undue emphasis on hotel standards such as decor and not sufficient emphasis or expertise into inspecting standards of treatment and care".
The Minister might say, if there were an opportunity to respond today, that a much stricter regulatory regime for private medical care has been introduced in the last month. That is undoubtedly true, and welcome. As of the beginning of April, all private hospitals are subject to new standards and to inspection by the National Care Standards Commission. They are now required, for example, to ensure that the risks of proposed treatment are fully explained to patients. They also have to have a proper complaints procedure, which would have helped in the Touche case.
However, there is still no requirement in the regulations for any private hospital to publish any data on its clinical performance. Unless the hospital volunteers the information, it is impossible to know how many deaths occur within 30 days of surgery or how many emergency readmissions take place, yet information of that kind is now freely available in the NHS. Although private hospitals now need to have a proper complaints procedure, there seems to be no requirement for them to publish complaints in the same detail. Other prospective patients therefore cannot judge the hospital's record for themselves.
My Bill deals with all those deficiencies in a straightforward way. It simply requires private hospitals to publish the same independently audited data on clinical performance that NHS hospitals now have to publish. It also requires private hospitals to publish, in the same detail, complaints from patients. I note in passing what officials have probably already told the Minister—that these requirements could be achieved through regulation under existing legislation—but sadly the option of a ten—minute rule regulation is not available to Back Benchers, so I am forced to propose primary legislation.
Most private hospitals have nothing to fear from being open and transparent. The staff who work in them do a great job, and many would actually welcome public recognition of the high standards of care that they offer. The Bill will, however, make life much more difficult for private hospitals with something to hide.
Some may ask why this is any business of Government. Does not private medicine mean exactly that—a private matter in which the state should not become involved?

157
But the state is already involved. More and more people are being forced to turn to private hospitals for their treatment. Last year, more than 1 million patients had surgery in the United Kingdom's 230 private acute hospitals, and the number continues to rise.
The state will become even more involved in the private medical sector, if the Secretary of State for Health is to be believed. Last week he announced that he was giving primary care trusts "full discretion" to commission care from
"wherever it is best provided… from the public, private or voluntary sectors".
He said:
"the provider of care is less important than the quality of care provided".
I agree, but how can a primary care trust assess the best quality of care available, regardless of provider, if not all providers publish the same performance data?
If the Health Secretary means what he says about commissioning care from where it is best provided—I hope he does—that must also mean NHS patients routinely receiving treatment in private hospitals. Surely those patients have a right to know how those hospitals perform, just as they now know how NHS hospitals perform. Surely patients and primary care trusts have a right to be able to compare for themselves on the same terms the quality of care that is provided in two different hospitals. Surely the taxpayers have a right to see that their money is properly spent.
My Bill gives patients and taxpayers those rights and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Fiona Mactaggart, Chris Grayling, Dr. Andrew Murrison, Mr. Boris Johnson, Mr. Mark Field, Andrew Selous, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. Richard Bacon, Mr. Gregory Barker and Mr. Bill Wiggin.

Performance of Private Hospitals
  PERFORMANCE OF PRIVATE HOSPITALS
  Mr. George Osborne accordingly presented a Bill to require private hospitals to publish independently audited information on clinical performance and on complaints from patients on the same basis as that required of NHS hospitals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 135].
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1102), dated 17th April 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.—[Mr. Boateng.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses 4, 19, 23, 26 to 29, 87 to 92, 131 and 134 and Schedules Nos. 1, 5 and 38)
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair.]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 4

      REDUCED RATES OF DUTY ON BEER FROM SMALL BREWERIES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      3.47 pm
      Mr. Edward Davey: I should like to make a brief contribution on the clause before we consider the detailed amendments, as I think that we need to debate the principle of the Government's proposal to introduce progressive beer duty. We will deal with some of the problems through Conservative amendments that will have Liberal Democrat support. In introducing a new tax relief, we should debate the underlying principle before we deal with the detail that is the subject of the clause.
      The Financial Secretary will be aware that the issue of progressive beer duty has had a long gestation before coming to the House. There has been a long campaign, and the introduction of such a duty has had many supporters in the House and outside, whether among brewers, beer drinkers or members of the Campaign for Real Ale. Hon. Members who have spoken to CAMRA members in their constituencies will know of the passion that is felt by many people about the new relief. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government have been considering the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who is very active in the all—party group on beer, has been a champion for such a move in my party.
      The question, however, is whether the proposed move is right. The key argument used in its favour has been that we need a level playing field for the brewers who will benefit from the measure. The idea is that there is currently no level playing field between the microbreweries and small brewers—the traditional brewers—and the very large breweries. The rationale for the lack of a level playing field is that the larger breweries can obtain many economies of scale. They can use fairly aggressive discounting methods. Sometimes, the question is asked whether those are against competition. Therefore, people have argued that reform is needed in the brewing industry to create a level playing field. Another important argument relates to competition: many proponents of progressive beer duty have argued that it will achieve greater proliferation of real ales and greater choice.
      The previous Conservative Government and, indeed, this Government have considered reforms of various aspects of the beer industry to try to create a level playing field and to increase choice. We have seen the beer orders and Office of Fair Trading inquiries. Different measures and ideas have been put forward to try to create extra competition. The Government's analysis for reform is based, I hope, on that notion. Many past reforms have not

      159
      worked. Therefore, in deciding whether it wants to go down this road, the Committee must ask a few pertinent questions and put the policy to a few stringent tests.
      The first obvious question is whether the duty reform will maintain and indeed increase the choice of real ales and the quality of beer available to consumers. Will the rebate enable that? What financial analysis has Her Majesty's Treasury done to show that the relief is needed to meet those objectives? Will the relief improve the position of the brewing industry and improve choice for consumers?
      I assume that the Treasury has undertaken such research. Clearly, before one spends taxpayers' money, one will want to be certain that the policy is going to produce the benefits that it is alleged it will produce. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the research has been done. Moreover, I hope that he will promise to publish that research, so that it is in the public domain and so that, before we get to Report, we will all have a chance to examine what the boffins in the Treasury have been working on to justify the policy.
      I hope that the Minister will go further and reassure the Committee that the relief will be examined to check that it is meeting its objectives. We all wish it well. We all hope that it will work, but the Government need to ensure that when reliefs are created they are meeting their objective.
      The evidence that we have seen from sources in the industry, from consumers and from CAMRA is fairly compelling. We have looked at that research and been fairly impressed by it, but the Government have a different job if they are to represent the interests of the taxpayer. They must ensure that the research from the industry and from CAMRA is valid. They must do independent research to convince hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the relief would be a good use of taxpayers' money. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the research has been done, and that this was not a last minute, tabloid—pleasing, rabbit out of the hat policy decided at the last minute, with the World cup taking place this summer.
      Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the argument for the proposal is compelling. What proportion of British beer would be covered by clause 4?
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention. I believe from research that I have seen that less than 2 per cent. of beer brewed in the United Kingdom will benefit, but that will not necessarily go against the thrust of what the Government are doing, if their research shows that the proposal will improve competition and choice. It will have a big effect on more than 350 breweries, so it may be welcome, but we need to see the evidence to be reassured.
      Let us be clear. If Parliament passes the clause and the schedule that is linked to it, it will agree to expenditure of £15 million. which is an awful lot of money. It is also being asked to agree to put on the statute book nine new pages of tax law to back up the £15 million tax concession. We should also bear it in mind that private sector companies and Customs and Excise officials will have to spend hours ensuring that the money works properly and is not abused. In due course, as the wily minds of the private sector find ways around the nine pages before us, we will doubtless be asked to pass anti—avoidance legislation.
      160
      Although I am trying to provoke a debate on the principle behind clause 4, I do so in a spirit of acceptance of the policy. I hope that it will bring about the claimed advantages, and that the Minister can reassure us that it is well researched. Who in this House would oppose cheaper beer and greater choice in the pub? It is a popular notion that we would want to support in general terms, but we need reassurance on the detail.
      I have one final point for the Minister. According to some sources, the Chancellor's presentation of the policy on Budget day was rather misleading. He implied that it would result in a 14p reduction in the price of a pint of beer, but those hon. Members who have examined the policy in detail will know that the cut in duty is unlikely to be passed on to the consumer. Many brewers have told me that they are concerned about the way in which the policy is portrayed. They believe that most breweries will try to invest the money, given that they—particularly small independent microbreweries—operate on very tight margins. That would be a laudable use of the money, and with that in mind I hope that the Minister will present the policy in a slightly different way to that deployed by the Chancellor on 17 April.
      If the policy will not in fact result in a 14p reduction in the price of a pint of beer, those beer drinkers who, hopefully, will be watching us massacre Sweden in the World cup will want to know why they cannot buy beer at that price. If the answer is that breweries will invest the money in providing a greater choice of beers, in premises through which to sell beer, and in independent outlets, that might well be a good thing, but we want to know whether that was the Government's intention. We do not want to hear the spin that we heard on Budget day; we want to know the reality behind the proposal. I hope that the Minister can give serious answers to those serious questions.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) supports our amendments, and we, too, support clause 4. He was in fact being rather kind to the Government in arguing that the Chancellor has said one thing but that the reality is rather different. I wonder whether he is aware of today's statement by the Independent Family Brewers of Britain, which consists of 33 family—owned and family—run brewers and pub retailers:
      "The way the Chancellor announced the reductions was a complete con. We estimate that approximately 0.5 per cent. of pubs will be able to take advantage of the change in beer duty—any England fan looking for cheaper beer at the time of the World Cup will have a very long (and thirsty!) search. The public has been misled into believing that village pubs will offer cheaper beer and that is only the case in a tiny, tiny minority."
      In identifying the fact that, as so often in the past, the Chancellor's Budget is all clever words designed for a wider audience, the hon. Gentleman has made a good point. As we always say, we must look at the small print. The Chancellor said in his Budget statement:
      "I have decided that the duty paid on their own beer will be halved. This is a cut equal to 14p off each pint, to be implemented for village pubs and small breweries by this summer—in time for the World cup."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 584.]
      However, that is far from the truth.
      Mr. Howard Flight: As usual.
      Mr. Chope: As my hon. Friend says, that is usual. I hope that we will hear an explanation of why the Chancellor spoke at such length to give the impression to people listening to his Budget that they would be able to get cheap beer after 1 June, when the reality is very different.
      I shall not say any more about clause 4, because it is important to get on to the amendments. If we accept the principle, we need to ensure that we come up with a workable system. At the moment, it is not workable.
      4 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Opposition were characteristically carping, cavilling and mealy—mouthed. After many years of campaigning for this change by many sectors of the industry and the pub—going public—backed by some Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members—when the day finally arrives, we hear nothing but whining and attempts to undermine a real achievement for the industry. It will bring new hope to nine out of 10 UK breweries, which will make savings of up to £120,000 as a result of this measure. That includes all microbreweries and local breweries.
      What we should have heard from the Opposition was some acknowledgement that they supported the change. Successive Governments have sought to support the diversity of the British beer market, notably by use of regulations allowing independent brewers access to tied estates. As the number of tied estates has fallen and pub companies have come to the fore, it has become increasingly difficult to promote diversity and market access through regulation. When we are asked for the rationale behind the scheme, it is an attempt to meet that concern and recognise the particular difficulties that small breweries face when seeking to grow their business and compete for access in today's beer market.
      We estimate that the savings will help small breweries to remain profitable when selling beer to pub companies at discount rates and, for many, will allow them to invest in their own pubs, which will offer them a more secure and stable outlet for their products. Of course, the choice is theirs; it is not for the Government to dictate how small breweries should make use of the savings now available. Some may choose to cut their prices, but others will seek to re—invest the savings to enable them to compete against medium and large breweries. That is why we, too, found convincing the arguments put to us by the Small Independent Brewers Association.
      The scheme has been under active consideration by successive Governments since at least 1989, when it was recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Indeed, we have been in close consultation with the brewing industry since announcing that we were considering the scheme in the 2001 Budget. That consultation demonstrated exactly what we have announced and the veracity of the rationale that lies behind the measure. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that this was a Budget wheeze thought up a few days before to grab some headlines does not do him justice. He gives these matters greater consideration than that cheap jibe would suggest. I hope that he does not intend to continue in that vein for the rest of the consideration of this Finance Bill.
      Mr. John Bercow: I hope that he does.
      Mr. Boateng: The shadow Chief Secretary says from a sedentary position, "I hope that he does." I wonder how often the hon. Gentleman will turn up in Committee. He will not have to endure the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—
      Mr. Bercow: I will be there.
      Mr. Boateng: Good. We look forward very much to the continued attendance of the shadow Chief Secretary, as we want to put him to the test. He has not had any testing yet, and it is time that he had some.
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose
      Mr. Boateng: I see the shadow Chief Secretary is itching to respond, but he will have plenty of time to do so in the Committee's deliberations. He must restrain himself just a little longer, while I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, although I am sorry to stop him in his rather tedious tracks. So far, he has failed to say whether he will publish the analysis performed by the Treasury before the policy was decided. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there has been consultation. Have the results been published? If so, where are they available? If not, when will they be published?
      Mr. Boateng: I am not going to fall for that one. I would not want to be tedious and bore the Committee this afternoon in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am only too happy to write to him to outline the general nature of the consultation, but I do not intend to publish the details. The hon. Gentleman can do what he will with the letter that I shall write to him on the subject, but he needs to understand why the small breweries so welcome the measure.
      The measure will help to level the playing field. Small brewers will be able to compete more effectively with the big regional and national breweries. They will be able to use the savings that they make to invest in their own pubs, or to offer increased discounts when selling their beer.
      The proposed relief will provide support for small brewers throughout their growth—from the first barrel that they produce until they reach the £2.5 million turnover of regional brewers. The relief is focused and will meet the needs of those who require it most. It will retain for the UK the rich diversity of its brewing industry, and protect consumer choice in an age when multi—million pound pub companies dominate the retail market.
      We want a beer industry in which 500 brewers have access to the market, and not just the largest 50. That is why the small brewing industry has welcomed the measure with such warmth. The proposal is right in principle, which is why it will be capable of withstanding the detailed scrutiny of the Committee.
      I commend the principle and its outcome to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      BEER FROM SMALL BREWERIES: REDUCED RATE OF DUTY
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 17, page 110, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3) Beer produced in a small brewery for export shall not count towards the maximum production levels specified for small breweries elsewhere in this Part.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, page 112, line 2, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 5, page 112, line 14, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 7, page 112, line 17, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 6, page 112, line 20, leave out from "that" to end and insert—
      'beer produced under licence is not small brewery beer'.
      No. 8, page 112, line 26, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 9, page 113, line 9, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 10, page 113, line 13, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 11, page 114, line 19, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 12, page 115, line 10, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 13, page 115, line 13, leave out from "that" to end and insert—
      `beer produced under licence is not small brewery beer'.
      No. 14, page 115, line 22, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 15, page 116, line 42, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      No. 16, page 116, line 46, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".
      Mr. Chope: The amendments would introduce common sense into the eligibility rules entitling small breweries to a reduced rate of duty on their first 5,000 hectolitres of production. In this debate, we shall have to refer quite a lot to hectolitres. People following the debate may wish to know that a hectolitre is 100 litres—almost 22 gallons, or 176 pints. Unfortunately, the Bill refers to hectolitres.
      Amendment No. 17 would exclude from the calculation of annual production for the purpose of assessing eligibility production for export, which is already exempt from the penal rates of beer duty on domestic sales. However, the amendment is not as far reaching as amendment No. 4 and the consequential amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16. Those amendments would extend relief to all brewers producing up to 200,000 hectolitres per annum, instead of limiting it to those producing up to 30,000 hectolitres per annum. It is because amendment No. 4 goes to the core of the argument that I shall seek to divide the Committee on that amendment rather than amendment No. 17.
      164
      Amendment No. 4 would make about another 25 small breweries eligible for relief at a cost to the Exchequer of about £3 million or £3.25 million—about one tenth of 1 per cent. of total beer duty yield. The Financial Secretary referred to regional brewers as though only they were excluded from this scheme. He may be interested to know about the Ringwood brewery, close to my constituency. It is not a regional brewery but a popular local brewery and it produces between 40,000 and 50,000 hectolitres per annum. It is a family fine, founded in 1978; it originally had one employee and now employs 44 people. Within any definition, it is a small business and a small brewer. It was gravely misled, because it assumed that the benefit would apply to it, but it will not.
      The Chancellor told the House and the nation in the Budget that he would
      "encourage one group of small businesses, the nation's small breweries".
      He went on to say:
      "I have decided that the duty paid on their own beer will be halved."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 584.]
      The Ringwood brewery thought that it would be one of those small breweries, but the small print shows that it does not qualify.
      The situation is pretty serious, not just for the Ringwood brewery but for a number of other independent family breweries. The Independent Family Brewers of Britain says:
      "We had asked the Government to follow the European model and allow tax relief for small brewers producing up to 200,000 hectolitres a year … The 30,000 hectolitre limit proposed in the Budget affects under 2 per cent. of the market and will leave many small brewers out in the cold."
      The letter continues:
      "We are delighted that the Conservatives are asking the Chancellor to help brewers like ourselves and fully support their suggested amendments to raise the production threshold for tax relief to 200,000 hectolitres from the proposed 30,000 hectolitres and also to allow beer produced in small breweries for export not to count towards these maximum production levels."
      That is a good third-party endorsement for the common sense encapsulated in the amendments.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially after reading out that press release. Did it go on to say what it thought about the Conservatives' record in failing over 18 years to introduce a reduced rate?
      Mr. Chope: No, it did not. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cope went to Europe and signed a document on this in 1993 or 1994. Unfortunately, he was not in a position to bring a measure before the House. However, it ill behoves the Government to suggest that they have been quick to remedy the situation.
      Mr. Robert Key: Five years.
      Mr. Chope: It has taken them five years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says. What did they do when they first got into office? They added 2p duty to a pint of beer—a further anti—competitive measure introduced by this Government. Now, late in the day, after five years in office, they propose this measure. Although we welcome it, let us not delude ourselves into thinking

      165
      that the Government were quick off the mark as soon as they got elected in 1997. I am sure that, had we been returned to office in 1997, we would have introduced such a measure much sooner.
      4.15 pm
      One of the key elements of the proposal is a cliff edge that will adversely affect breweries as soon as production exceeds the 30,000 hectolitre point. A brewery that crosses that threshold will immediately forfeit £120,000 in duty relief. I have been advised that to compensate for that, a brewery would have to double its production to about 60,000 hectolitres before it became worthwhile to stay in business at that level of production, instead of reverting to a production level of less than 30,000 hectolitres. That is why the measure is so damaging to breweries in the production range of 30,000 to 60,000 hectolitres. It will act as a perverse incentive on those breweries to reduce their production, which is quite the reverse of what the Chancellor seemed to intend. Moreover, it will provide no incentive whatever for breweries that are below the 30,000 hectolitre limit to push up their production and expand to beyond that level.
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. What were once microbreweries have grown, and the cliff-edge approach is wholly wrong. I thank him, on behalf of the management. work force and customers of the Hopback brewery in my constituency, for tabling the amendment. The Ringwood brewery is pretty good, but of course Hopback is much better, and is acknowledged to be so all over the country.
      The amendment is wholly sensible, and I hope that the Minister will listen to our argument. The tapered approach is much more likely to achieve what the Chancellor wants—a level playing field for smaller brewers.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that he has done with the Hopback brewery in promoting the amendment and in trying to get the Government to listen. That brewery is expanding, and wants to do so in order to become significant in the marketplace.
      Total production by breweries that produce less than 200,000 hectolitres a year is only about 5 per cent. of overall total beer production. Only the six very large breweries, which are largely international, and six or seven other large breweries, which are quoted on the stock exchange, have production levels of substantially above 200,000 hectolitres a year. If the Government are really interested in helping small breweries, they should extend the definition of a small brewery to cover all those with production levels below 200,000 hectolitres. European legislation refers to that 200,000 limit. As we have by far the highest beer duty of any country in Europe, why are the Government so churlish about introducing the European maximum level for allowing such concessions to be made? That would not involve much cost to the Exchequer.
      I hope that the Government will accept this common—sense amendment, which would allow the Bill to work to the advantage of small and growing breweries and redound to the benefit of those breweries and their loyal customers.
      166
      This is not a matter only of breweries in general or of beer in general; it is very significant for those of us who enjoy real ale, because about half of the total production of real, or cask, ale comes from small independent brewers. They are the ones who have introduced choice; they are maintaining a key element of our British way of life. Some of their beer may be served warm and some of it may be served at cricket grounds where our former Prime Minister can sip it as he watches the game.
      The amendments, if accepted, will ensure that there is more growth in cask ale production than heretofore. They will be good for British brewing. I commend them to the Committee.
      Mr. Edward Davey: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the amendments proposed by the Conservative Opposition. If it is right to support small and microbreweries, the Government must get the legislation right. They must get their analysis right, which is why, in our previous debate, I called for their analysis to be published. At least we would then have information that would help us to debate the issue.
      If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury writes to me with acceptable evidence, there will be no problems with the schedule on Report. However, like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we have some concerns about what the Government are doing. The 30,000 hectolitre limit seems wrong. Not only does it run counter to the European directive that allows an upper limit of 200,000 hectolitres—it is surprising that the Government have not given the industry the support that it is allowed under that legislation—but it is a bizarre use of taxpayers' money. In the first year, the 30,000 hectolitre limit will cost the taxpayer £10 million, and in subsequent years, £15 million.
      Evidence from the brewing industry shows that raising the limit from 30,000 to 200,000 hectolitres would cost only a further £3.2 million. If the Government challenge that figure, perhaps Ministers will give us further information on those costs. There are only 27 breweries in that sector of the market, while 350 breweries would fall below the 30,000 hectolitre limit. The tax advantage would apply only to a small number of breweries, so the extra cost would be relatively small. There cannot, therefore, be a cost argument against increasing the limit as the cost is marginal.
      The brewing industry is concerned about the measure's impact on competition. The hon. Member for Christchurch touched on that, but did not go into detail. I do not pretend to be an expert on the brewing industry, but it seems to be divided into three groups: at one end, there are microbreweries—small local breweries and pubs that brew their own tipple; at the other end are the huge brewing companies that have developed during the past decade or so; and in the middle, there are medium-sized independents. Some of them have a brewing capacity of more than the 200,000 hectolitre limit, so they would not benefit from the amendments. However, at least such breweries would accept the restrictions imposed by the EU legislation.
      The 27 breweries to which I referred include Brakspear, St. Austell brewery, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), Harveys brewery, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and Hook

      167
      Norton brewery. Those breweries would benefit if the Government extended the limit. In order to ensure that an important segment of the brewing industry is not disadvantaged and that we do not create distortion in the market, the Government would be well advised to accept the amendments.
      On a political point, I would counsel the Government not to be too concerned by the contents of the press release that the hon. Member for Christchurch read out. Although the amendments were tabled by Conservative Front—Bench Members, I believe that they enjoy the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House; I hope that Labour Back Benchers will take part in the debate. If the Financial Secretary realises that, he will not be frightened out of accepting the amendments simply because they were tabled by Conservative Front—Bench Members.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am not familiar with the economics of running breweries, although I have toured two in my time, but it seems possible that economies of scale are much more critical for very small breweries than they are for the breweries that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about, and that the Government's proposals are aimed at helping very small breweries to survive and proliferate—we hope, to make beer even more varied than it is now.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair argument, but if he talks to those particular brewers he will find that they still have problems competing with the larger breweries, who have huge economies of scale and huge selling power, and can therefore operate at an extreme competitive advantage. Thus many of the breweries that we are arguing for tonight would benefit. Moreover, many of them, because they are traditional brewers, occupy very traditional premises, which are in themselves almost part of the cultural heritage. If they are to reap some of the modern benefits of economies of scale that the hon. Gentleman referred to, many of them would have to move premises, leave their traditional roots and, possibly, their local setting, which often gives its name to their brew. If the hon. Gentleman were to talk to brewers in that category, he would be reassured.
      Finally, I want to raise a point of principle. Obviously, any limit creates distortions against growth, because some brewers will naturally come up against that limit as they expand. However, we have a cross—Europe limit, imposed by the European Union, of 200,000 hectolitres, so it is odd that the Government have chosen a lower one.
      Mr. James Staughton from St. Austell Brewery Company Ltd. explained to me that his brewery was currently looking to expand. Its total production is just under 30,000 hectolitres, so it would benefit, but if it expands as it intends to, its production would go over the limit. The company is in the very difficult position of having to decide whether to halt its planned expansion in order to get the benefit of the reduced duty rate, or go ahead with the expansion and lose that new advantage. Thus the limit has already affected a commercial decision by that brewer.
      I am sure that many other brewers, either currently or in the future, will have to make that difficult decision. It is bad when the Government produce a tax relief that affects
      168
      ordinary commercial decisions. There would be a logic to a 200,000 hectolitre limit, because that would fit EU legislation; there is no logic to the 30,000 hectolitre limit.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that subsection (10) of proposed new section 36C on page 112 would not create the cliff—top situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) earlier? Actually, the individual brewery will receive the benefit up to 30,000 hectolitres in that year, and then will pay duty only on the amount in excess of the limit. Future decisions might be affected, but in the specific year the brewery will not suddenly face that collapse.
      Mr. Davey: The information that I have received from the brewers is that many will have their commercial decisions affected in the way that I describe, so I cannot necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a taper in the new relief, but it applies below the threshold, not quite in the smooth way that he seemed to imply above the threshold.
      4.30 pm
      Moving away from the principle behind the amendments, may I seek clarification from the Minister on one or two specific points? Many brewers who are reading the Bill do not understand what the Government are trying to do. For example, the first condition, which is set out on page 114 in proposed new section 36E(4), refers to the eligible amount of beer produced in the previous year. Obviously, breweries can calculate that amount from their sales figures, but the second condition refers to the amount that is expected to be brewed in the future. Brewers will have to try to work out whether they are eligible for that relief, but they are not sure which production level will count. So they need guidance from the Minister, or from Customs and Excise officials, to work out whether they will be eligible. What baseline should they use to judge their eligibility?
      Other concerns have been raised with me. For example, some people have queried the fact that the Government have chosen to use the figure 365 in the calculation that appears on page 114 in proposed new section 36E(5). Obviously, that figure refers to the number of days in a year, but the Independent Family Brewers of Britain informs me that no brewer brews every day of the year. That association wonders why the Government have based their calculation on something unrelated to brewers' production schedules.
      The final point on which various brewers have asked me to seek clarification relates to proposed new section 36C(3), in which the Government try to define a relevant brewery—for example, whether it can consist of a group of breweries and how the brewery is formed. The concern is that the Government suggest in part of that section that the definition relates to the employees. If an employee is a member of a brewery or a group of breweries, he or she can attract the relief. However, the implication is that if that person decides to change jobs in that year and works for another brewery that is not a member of the group of breweries, the first employer will not be entitled to the relief.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) laughs, but that is the commercial reality. People want to know whether their employment decisions and the

      169
      decisions that their employees take will change their eligibility for the relief. I hope that the Government will provide clarification on that matter.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: I rise in wholehearted support of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I speak on behalf of one of the 27 breweries not to be favoured by the Bill, unlike the other 320 that are to be favoured by it. Like my hon. Friend, my heart leapt when I heard the Chancellor speak of measures in the Budget to help small breweries, because I thought that he must mean Brakspear in my constituency.
      Hon. Members will be familiar with Brakspear's bitter. If they are not, they jolly well ought to be. I do not mean to cast aspersions on any of the other excellent beers that are brewed in my hon. Friends' constituencies, but they will agree that Brakspear's is the finest because it is brewed by the traditional double—dropping method and therefore contains a higher quotient of hops than most normal beers. Indeed, when I was at school, my school had a contract with Brakspear. We were supplied with Brakspear's beer every Sunday. I am a living testament to the benefits of that drink.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It was not Ashdown house, was it?
      Mr. Johnson: No, it was not Ashdown house.
      Imagine how surprising and saddening it is not just for me, but for a great many people in my constituency and elsewhere, to find that Brakspear is now, after more than 200 years, at serious risk of ceasing to brew. It is highly likely that Brakspear will no longer be able to brew the bitter for which it is famous. Inspector Morse used to drink Brakspear's bitter. It is a great shame that that traditional English beer should be coming to an end.
      Why is it coming to an end? Brakspear is facing adverse trading conditions in many different ways. I had a long conversation on Friday night with a chief executive who is extremely alarmed about the national insurance hikes, and so on. He is extremely upset by the Chancellor's decision to favour 320 microbrewers and not to favour the 27 other brewers about which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) spoke eloquently. Plainly, the 27 others—including Brakspearshould be included in the exemption outlined in the Budget. I see absolutely no reason why the threshold cannot be raised to 200,000 hectolitres, given that, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that falls in line with European Union recommendations anyway.
      Brakspear is a small brewery, it is a local brewery and it is under serious threat of ceasing production. It makes an absolute nonsense of the Government's claims to favour choice, diversity and old businesses to push through a measure that could expedite its closure. It should be helped, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will respond creatively and imaginatively to the sensible amendments that have been supported by both main Opposition parties, and do his level best to save Brakspear
      170
      in Henley from ceasing to brew. That would be a great disadvantage not just to my constituency but to the brewing community and to the drinking public.
      Mr. Boateng: Tempting though it is, I shall not be drawn into discussing the merits of individual brews and breweries—
      Mr. Bercow: Go on.
      Mr. Boateng: The shadow Chief Secretary will appreciate the problems of discussing the individual tax affairs of individual companies at the Dispatch Box. He would be the last person to encourage me to go down that route. Hon. Members who have breweries in their constituencies are perfectly right to raise their constituents' concerns, however, and I know that Customs and Excise is still in discussion with several of those breweries. We await with interest and eager anticipation the outcome of that discussion as to whether those breweries qualify, at least in part, for relief.
      I have heard the heartfelt pleas of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who opined about the imminent demise of a brewery that served his alma mater. I would hate to go down in history as the Financial Secretary responsible for depriving the boys of Eton college of their favourite brew. Deprived and underprivileged as they are, to deprive them of their beer would really be the last straw. We have all heard, with varying degrees of sympathy, the pleas made by hon. Members about individual breweries, but they will understand why I cannot deal with those individual cases.
      Mr. Bercow: I am just a poor state school product from Finchley, so I would not know about the highfalutin matters being described by the Financial Secretary. The commercial pressures faced by brewers on the one hand, and the financial costs incurred by beer drinkers on the other, represent the context of our discussion. Will the Financial Secretary therefore demonstrate his grasp of the issue by telling us, for the current financial year, what proportion of the price of an average pint of beer is accounted for by tax and excise duty?
      Mr. Boateng: It would be most unwise, in considering this question, to suggest that small regional breweries are likely to go out of business as a result of anything that this Government have done. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's question in a minute. However, it is hard to accept that a brewery with an annual production of 70,000 hectolitres and a turnover of £8 million will be threatened if it does not receive relief worth just 1.5 per cent. of its total turnover. It is similarly hard to accept that such a brewery will be priced out of the market because brewers with a turnover of less than half that receive some relief. To suggest that, as a result of the measure, some brewers will be put at a competitive disadvantage is to over—egg the pudding a bit.
      Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Can he explain the logic behind the Opposition's argument? They suggest that the measure will not result in a fall in the price of the beer produced by small brewers and yet they claim that the fall

      171
      in the price of the beer produced by small brewers will put slightly larger brewers out of business. How can the Opposition sustain both propositions at the same time?
      Mr. Boateng: I find it very difficult to fathom the logic in the arguments of Opposition Members. They are opposing for the sake of opposing, and that is their right. I suppose that, if we were in their position, we would do likewise. However, we are not likely to be in their position for a very, very long time—partly because of the success of the measures outlined in the Budget.
      What got me in the questions of the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was the suggestion that this Government were something other than the friend of the beer drinker and the brewer. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham knows what has happened to duty, because it is dangerous to ask a question the answer to which one does not already know. That is why his question is surprising. I feel constrained to point out to him that duty, as a proportion of the retail price of a pint of beer, was 32 per cent. in 1991. Today, it is 29 per cent. That is a fall of 3 per cent. Beer duty has been frozen for the last two Budgets, and that has saved British beer drinkers a very large amount of money.
      I challenge the hon. Member for Buckingham—perhaps he will be so good as to take note of the challenge—to write to me to show whether, in any period of the Conservative Administration, he can point to a similar record of support for the industry.
      Mr. Bercow: I will do that.
      Mr. Boateng: Good. The hon. Gentleman is going to take me on. He will have plenty of time in Committee to share with us the outcome of his research.
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Mr. Boateng: I must make progress, because I want to come to the points that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised.
      The hon. Gentleman asked why the limit has been set at 30,000 hectolitres. It is an interesting question, because there are at least 115 reasons in an early—day motion that show why the limit should be set at 30,000 hectolitres. The early—day motion has been signed by Members on both sides of the House, including leading members of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Bercow: Is there such a thing?
      Mr. Boateng: Yes, there is. We must be fair to the Liberal Democrat party. It has some distinguished members, and a number of them have signed the early—day motion. However, I do not see the signature—perhaps I have missed it—of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Still, all who signed the motion call for a limit of 30,000 hectolitres, and that is not surprising. They show a great deal of good sense by calling for that limit, because it is supported by the Society of Independent Brewers. Hon. Members know that that society rather than any other represents small local brewers. It is the voice of the small local brewer and the measure is designed to support them.
      172
      4.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that he does not know much about the beer industry but thinks that it is divided into three sectors. It is possible to do that. The 400 microbrewers and the local brewers are usually described as small brewers. If we link them with the 40 regional brewers and the handful of national brewers, that makes three sectors. It is, of course, also possible to divide the industry into four sectors if we disengage the microbrewers and the local brewers, as some people would prefer.
      We know, however, that the 40 regional brewers and the handful of national brewers have a different interest from the local brewers and microbrewers. We need to be open and up front about that. The measure is designed to benefit local brewers and microbrewers. Although there is undoubtedly some overlap at the margins—perfectly fair points can be made about that—it is generally accepted that the break between local brewers and regional brewers is at about 30,000 hectolitres.
      Mr. Bercow: I think I have got the point.
      Mr. Boateng: Good, because in that case the Conservatives will not divide the Committee.
      Mr. Bercow: We will divide the Committee.
      Mr. Boateng: So the Conservatives will divide the House even though they have got the point. That simply does not make sense.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can repeat that the measure is intended to benefit local brewers when it is clearly playing a part in expediting the demise of Brakspear's brewing in south Oxfordshire, something that it has done for 200 years. How can that be helping local brewers?
      Mr. Boateng: I understand and applaud the hon. Gentleman's perseverance on behalf of his local firm, but when he reflects on the measure and the figures, he will realise that the suggestion that it will put his local brewer out of business is a travesty of the truth.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: I want to finish the point. At 30,000 hectolitres, brewers have a turnover of more than £2.5 million. It is fair to say that a measure to benefit small businesses should focus on a break—off point of about £2.5 million. I do not think that that is unreasonable, as I hope the House will recognise in the fullness of time.
      Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government have listened to the Society of Independent Brewers. I do not want him or his colleagues to doubt that we applaud the fact that, unlike the last Conservative Government, they have listened. In that spirit, therefore, and as part of their desire to be open to argument, will he agree that if the amendment is withdrawn and there is no Division, he will consult the brewing industry further to

      173
      determine whether the welcome reduction in beer rates can be extended in the small way that is proposed, and allow us to debate the matter again on Report?
      Mr. Boateng: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman did not table the amendment and he is in no position to make such an offer. I see no response to his suggestion from the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is Liberal Democrat presumption at its height.
      Amendment No. 17 attempts to reduce the amount of beer that is taken into account when assessing eligibility for a scheme by excluding exports. Whatever its merits, it would have the fatal drawback of being outwith EC law, the very law that Opposition Members pray in aid in relation to the higher limit and the very law that governs the scheme.
      Mr. Bryant: Is it not also true that the argument of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) holds water, or perhaps beer, only if Brakspear is determined that any competition from microbreweries—those we are keen to support—will be a problem for it, so it is trying to prevent competition?
      Mr. Boateng: I must maintain my self—denying ordinance and not comment on the tax arrangements for specific sectors and companies in the industry, but my hon. Friend makes a trenchant point in his usual trenchant way.
      Roger Casale: I simply want to confirm to the Minister that I have today spoken to the Society of Independent Brewers, and it has confirmed that this measure will help independent brewers to survive and flourish. Furthermore, they have been fighting for this measure for over 21 years; indeed, this Bill will amend the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. Year after year since then, at Budget time the society made suggestions to Conservative Governments, but those suggestions were rejected and the society was not listened to. Now we are introducing the measure that will help independent brewers, and that is exactly the moment when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) opposes it.
      Mr. Boateng: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I could not have put it better myself. On that note, I ask the Committee overwhelmingly to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Chope: The Minister says that amendment No. 17 would not work because of European law, so obviously I accept that and I will seek to withdraw the amendment.
      The problem would not be so bad if the limit were lifted from 30,000 to 200,000 hectolitres. I am disappointed that the Minister has not addressed the point about small local breweries. The Ringwood brewery is a small local brewery; it is also a successful brewery, which is why it can produce as much as it does with only 44 employees. If the Minister takes the view that a brewery with 44 employees is the equivalent of a regional or international brewery and should be exposed to unfair competition from much smaller breweries, he has failed to address the arguments. Ringwood is a founding member of the Society of Independent Brewers and of the campaign for progressive beer duty, and it falls pretty hard on it now to find itself disadvantaged by the measure.
      174
      The Minister was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), because he was articulating the views of the management of that fine brewery, Brakspear, not off the top of his head but as they were expressed in a press release on 19 April. Jim Burrows, the chief executive, said:
      "This clumsy tinkering with beer duty could eliminate the very British heritage the Chancellor claims to defend."
      He went on to say how vulnerable his firm will be to unfair competition from microbreweries.
      The Government are obsessed with microbreweries' competition with slightly larger breweries, such as Ringwood and Brakspear. The biggest problem in brewing and the pub trade is the dominance of the very large breweries. By accepting amendment No. 4 and the other consequential amendments, the Minister would enable this great cohort of expanding independent brewers to expand even further and to make an even larger collective impact on the market. They would be able to take on the large breweries that get a great deal of protection because they can offer deep discounts.
      I am disappointed by the Government's response and the fact that they have not listened to our points; I hope that the Committee will vote for amendment No. 4 and, when it has a chance, will look at early—day motion 1047, to which the Minister did not refer; 61 Members support a duty on production of up to 200,000 hectolitres, with a concession for brewers producing beer less than that volume. The signatories include quite a lot of Labour Members; it will be interesting to see whether they join the Minister in the Lobby or vote for amendment No. 4, which is consistent with the early—day motion.
      On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 17.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 112, line 2, leave out "30,000" and insert "200,000".—[Mr. Chope.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 316.

      Division No. 226]

      [4.56 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Allan, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Amess, David

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Bacon, Richard

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Baker, Norman

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Barker, Gregory

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Baron, John

      (NE Fife)

      Barrett, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beggs, Roy

      Cash, William

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Bellingham, Henry

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Bercow, John

      Chidgey, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clappison, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brady, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      Brake, Tom

      Cran, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Breed, Colin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      175

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maples John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Doughty, Sue

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Moore, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Flight, Howard

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Page, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Paterson, Owen

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pickles, Eric

      Francois, Mark

      Price, Adam

      Garnier, Edward

      Prisk, Mark

      Gibb, Nick

      Pugh, Dr John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Randall, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Grayling, Chris

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Robertson, Argus (Moray)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tawk'b'ry)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Ruffley, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Salmond, Alex

      Hayes, John

      Sanders, Adrain

      Heald, Oliver

      Selous, Andrew

      Heath, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heathcoat-Amory. Rt Hon David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hermon, Lady

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hoban, Mark

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

      Holmes, Paul

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Horam, John

      Somaes, Nicholas

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Spink, Bob

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Steen, Anthony

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Streeter, Gary

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenharn)

      Swire, Hugo

      Keetch, Paul

      Syms, Robert

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Thurso, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Trend, Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyler, Paul

      Laws, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Viggers, Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Walter, Robert

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Webb, Steve

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Weir, Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wiggin, Bill

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Willis, Phil

      176

      Wilshire, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Wishart, Pete

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Allen, Graham

      (Copeland)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Austin, John

      David, Wayne

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davidson, Ian

      Baird, Vera

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Banks, Tony

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Barron, Kevin

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beard, Nigel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bell, Stuart

      Dhanda, Parmijit

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bryant, Chris

      Etherington, Bill

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cairns, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Follett, Barbara

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael, (Worcester)

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Challen, Colin

      Foulkes, George

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chaytor, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Gilroy, Linda

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cohen, Harry

      Havard, Dai

      Colman, Tony

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Heppell, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Heyes, David

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      177

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hope, Phil

      Moran, Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mulin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Illsley, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Joyce, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kelly, Ruth

      Pike, Peter

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Purnell, James

      Laxton, Bob

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rapson, Syd

      Levitt, Tom

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Robertson, John

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Linton, Martin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie

      Lucas, Ian

      Roy, Frank

      Lyons, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ryan, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McNamara, Kevin

      Simon, Siôn

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWatter, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Southworth, Helen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Meale, Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phylllis

      Merron, Gillian

      Stevenson, George

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Miliband, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grirnsby)

      Stringer, Graham

      178

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Tami, Mark

      Watson, Tom

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      White, Brian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      (Swansea W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wills, Michael

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wilson, Brian

      Todd, Mark

      Winnick, David

      Touhig, Don

      Winterton, Ms Rosie Doncaster C)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wortington, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Wray, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wrigh, Anthony D (Gt Yamouth)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tynan, Bill

      Wyatt, Derek

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Clause 19

      REGISTERED VEHICLES ETC
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Flight: I would expect cross-party agreement on the need for effective measures to deal with the problem of abandoned cars, of which there are some 350,000 each year. The Government's proposals amount, broadly, to clause 19, which implements the terms of schedule 5.
      The crucial issue is whether the proposals will be effective. The problem of abandoned cars is growing because scrap yards are not interested in taking clapped-out cars and tend to demand payment for doing so. In turn, that has resulted from the fall in scrap prices. There has been broad support for the DTLR consultation and broad agreement that measures are needed to incentivise and provide proper arrangements for the disposal of old cars, and to ensure that the keepers of cars are made responsible for the registration formalities of transfer and disposal.
      Without reform and implementation by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of a proper receipting system, clause 19 and schedule 5 will not satisfactorily address the problem of abandoned vehicles and could indeed compound it. At the heart of the matter is the fact that the DVLA does not have a records system that carries accurate real-time information to enable the tracing of vehicles' owners at the time of abandonment.
      The problem is major. There are some 12 million old vehicles on the road without proper registration papers. For example, the number of vehicles registered in 1989 totalled some 2.3 million, of which about 624,000—some 27 per cent.—are not accounted for. That takes into account all those that have already been scrapped or for which SORN—statutory off-road notification—has been given.
      The DTLR has indicated that the schedule 5 measures, which clause 19 implements, may be used to pursue the last keeper on record if the car in question is not taxed or recorded as being off the road. Many of the cars making up the numbers that I have just cited will have changed

      179
      hands several times through the back door or may be sitting on rotting land. We take the view that it would be a monstrous travesty for the view last official recorded keeper of such a vehicle, who may be entirely innocent, to be accused and charged with non-payment of road tax and failure to notify that the vehicle is off the road, and even given speeding fines, when that person may be two, three or four people back in the vehicle's chain of car abandonment, as there is a greater incentive to dump non-roadworthy cars rather than store them on private land in order simply to avoid vehicle excise duty liabilities.
      If the proposals are to be practical and not potentially unfair, the DVLA must be reformed significantly and be in a position to issue and record accurate receipts of information about change of ownership, so that individuals who have duly notified it of changes have evidence to show that they have done so. I understand that a recent court case on that territory found against the DVLA. hon. Members will be aware that the Automobile Association has advised that it would be wrong to press ahead with the proposals until the DVLA can offer a real-time customer service and provide receipts on change of ownership.
      5.15 pm
      There are other problems, The liberal UK vehicle registration system allows any name to be recorded as the keeper, even a child's, if the proposals are to work, we need a timetable on DVLA modernisation. vehicles that have not changed hands since march 1997 have old registration papers, which do not provide for dual registration. Again, that issue needs to be implemented fairly and effectively.
      The abandonment problem requires a carrot-and-stick approach. it also probably needs the provision of easy and free take-back facilities for cars that have reached the end of their lives, and it needs effective but fair pursuit of the owner at the time cars are dumped. That can happen only if the DVLA has the necessary records.
      Is the intent of clause 19 and schedule 5 to include veteran cars and cars that may have been kept on a farm all their lives I still find the wording unclear, but there is the implication that both might be covered.
      We believe that much more consultation is necessary, especially on the detailed proposals in schedule 5, which if implemented as they stand could have a contrary and grossly unfair impact on innocent parties. We fear that the Government may be rushing through measures in the name of spin—to be able to say that they are doing something about abandoned vehicles—and without reforming the DVLS to ensure that the necessary information is available.
      We would like to that the Government will consult further before they implement clause 19, noting the latitude given to them in terms of implement the clause and schedule 5 until the DVLA has been reformed adequately. We will want to return to this issue on Report. If the issues that I have raised are not satisfactorily addressed, we will want to oppose the proposal, but we
      180
      cannot imagine that the Government intend to implement these measures without the necessary reforms of the DVLA.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats sought to have clause 19 debated in a Committee of the whole House because we are extremely concerned about the problem of abandoned vehicles. We recognise that the Government have taken action and that the clause is part of the strategy for dealing with the problem.
      My constituency of Kingston and Surbiton has experienced an epidemic of abandoned vehicles, which has caused huge problems for many residents. They are literally fed up of contacting the council or the DVLA and getting nowhere. I have many examples. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says that it is a Liberal Democrat council. It is a Liberal Democrat council now because last Thursday the Liberal Democrats made 11 gains and took over from an incompetent minority Tory administration in Kingston upon Thames. As we now have a Liberal Democrat administration in Kingston upon Thames we will see improvements in the removal of abandoned vehicles.
      The problem of abandoned vehicles is exceptionally serious, as such vehicles give rise to significant health and safety concerns. Children are often hurt playing on them, and they are sometimes set alight by vandals, causing significant damage. The Financial Secretary and the Paymaster General should therefore not make light of this serious issue. To some hon. Members, it may seem like pavement politics, but it is a real issue.
      The Government are to be congratulated on the consultation document—published last October by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to which I responded on my party's behalf—which proposes various ways of tackling the problem of abandoned cars. It contains many measures that I support, such as reducing notice periods for the removal of abandoned vehicles, and for their destruction once removed. I am particularly in favour of empowering local authorities to remove unlicensed vehicles; currently, such powers lie only with the DVLA. As the DVLA is rather stretched and does not have as great a local presence as councils, unlicensed vehicles often remain undealt with. Under current legislation, local authorities cannot deal with such vehicles because they are not abandoned. Bizarrely, the problem is ping-ponged between statutory agencies, one passing the buck to the other. The Government have recognised that fact in the consultation document and are taking steps to deal with it.
      Another key proposal that I fully support is giving local councils greater access to the DVLA's database, which I have advocated for my constituency for many years. I once persuaded the then head of enforcement at the DVLA, Haydon Madoc, to travel from Swansea to witness the epidemic of abandoned vehicles in my constituency. One solution that I discussed with him was enabling my local council to access the DVLA's database. It took a long time, but I believe that that key solution is now in place.
      The consultation document contains many useful proposals, and although the proposal before us is a step in the right direction I have some concerns about the detail.

      181
      I make that point in a spirit of genuine, constructive and effective opposition. The document states that the Government wanted to consult widely, and it mentions some of the measures now included in clause 19 and schedule 5, but it describes them as longer term. I shall quote from it to give hon. Members an idea of the Government's thinking last October. Paragraph 36 of section 5, headed "Longer term proposals", states:
      "In the longer term, the Government believes that stringent measures are needed to ensure that all vehicles can be associated with a registered keeper who has clear responsibility for ensuring that the vehicle is operated legally, and who remains responsible for civil and criminal penalties arising from misuse of that vehicle while it is in his possession."
      The document predicts that the Government will consult on the measures before us, but to my knowledge their conclusions have not been published. They have not responded to the consultation process, or to submissions from people such as me.
      I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the Government are ploughing ahead without hearing the results of the consultation. They may be going in the right direction, but as long ago as October we were told that the changes were longer-term reforms on which the Government would consult. I should like to see the results of the consultation before we enact the new powers.
      clause 19(2) says that the provision
      "shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument".
      Therefore, the Government are allowing extra time for consultation. They have produced the enabling legislative framework and will introduce the orders bringing the provisions into effect later. The Government may have realised that they are acting too quickly, but there is a protection against that in clause 19(2). If that is the case, I would like the Minister to say so. When will the Government introduce the orders in question? Will it be before the summer recess, and what will happen before the orders are considered by the House? We need to know, because they could implement significant changes.
      The Government need to consult on the orders beforehand. It is right to require people to retain fiscal responsibility for a motor vehicle unless and until they register the fact that they have sold the vehicle or it is no longer used on the road. However, if the Bill is passed, it will be the first time that VED will apply to vehicles not kept on the public road. What will that mean in practice? Will it mean that all the exemptions that currently apply—whether to classic cars or any of the other long list of exemptions in schedule 2 (a) to (q) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which I shall not list but which includes vehicles used on tram lines and electrically assisted pedal cycles—will continue to apply? I hope that the Minister can assure us that they will.
      The effect of the provision will be to enable excise duty to apply to vehicles not kept on public roads. I hope that that is only a device to ensure that abandoned cars that are not on the public road have to be registered so that the owner can be tracked down and held liable for any fines. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government have no intention of extending the tax net? If that is the object of the exercise, many right hon. and hon. Members will object.
      182
      The most serious concern is whether the proposals introduce an element of retrospection. Many people in the last 10 or 20 years might have passed on a vehicle to a relative or friend but not registered the change in ownership properly and, when the change took place, the extra duties and penalties were not in force. Those people could be linked to one of the many millions of vehicles no longer on the DVLA's register and thus fall foul of the new legislation. The Government need to convince the House that they will not apply those provisions in a draconian way.
      5.30 pm
      The Minister could reassure the Committee by saying how many licensed vehicles are on the DVLA register. Of that number, how many have statutory off-road notification? For how many vehicles has there been no recent activity or registration? A note from the Library leads me to understand that there may be as many as 2 million vehicles in the latter category. As a result, if we are not careful, 2 million owners could become liable for fiscal penalties under this retrospective measure.
      The matter is complex. I read through the 1994 Act and must admit that I had to put a hot towel around my head to understand its intricacies. However, it is clear that some proposals in the Bill may not have been thought through as completely as might be necessary.
      My final point touches on a matter, raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, that is key to the Government's aim of using the Bill to deal with abandoned cars. The hon. Gentleman noted that the DVLA does not provide receipts when cars are registered: a person who notifies the DVLA that a car has been sold on receives no receipt for that notification.
      The problem was at the heart of the court case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In November last year, Mr. Phil Davies from south Wales took on the DVLA in the magistrates court, the county court and the Court of Appeal. Eventually, he won the case. The DVLA had tried to fine Mr. Davies £35 for not returning a form in July 2001. Mr. Davies was adamant that he had returned the form, but he cold not prove it as the DVLA issued no receipt for it. However, the Court of Appeal finally found in favour of Mr. Davies, on the grounds that the DVLA had been remiss.
      If the Government are trying to use the Bill to deal with the problem of abandoned cars by developing continuous licensing, they will probably enjoy the support of the House. However, the problem with continuous licensing is that the DVLA would need to work out how to provide receipts for those members of the public who wanted to receive them. The receipts would prove that a person had notified the DVLA of a transfer of ownership.
      I suggest that the question of issuing receipts is at the core of the clause. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that the Government will take on board the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. If they do, they will enjoy the support of hon. Members of all parties. The move is important, and such an assurance would allow the Government to promote the objectives of their policy that much more strongly.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Abandoned cars are a blight on the landscape, and action is clearly needed. Some local authorities find the cost of dealing with the

      183
      problem to be great. I do not see why local council tax payers should have to foot the bill when irresponsible citizens dump their property in public places. Therefore, I begin by saying that I wish the Government well in their quest for a solution to the problem, but I share some of the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) about whether—I hope that the Minister will pardon the pun—the proposed measure is the correct vehicle for dealing with the problem.
      The proposal seems rather akin to a sledgehammer. Will the Minister say why the Bill does not contain a requirement that the duty would be payable only when a vehicle had clearly been abandoned, or left on a public highway or on public land? I am worried about the scope of the provisions. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that my fears are groundless.
      Clause 19 refers to schedule 5 of the Bill, which provides
      "for vehicle excise duty to be charged in respect of vehicles registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 that are neither used nor kept on a public road,
      for vehicle excise duty to be charged in respect of things that have been but have ceased to be mechanically propelled vehicles".
      Does the phrase "to be charged" necessarily mean that a fee has to be charged? Alternatively, when a particular class of registration under the 1994 Act gives rise to payment of a nil duty, would the clause also give rise to payment of a nil duty? My concern is about historic, classic and veteran vehicles. Not every Member may be aware that such vehicles are classified under a different category.
      Most right hon. and hon. Members who travel to this place by car do so in a vehicle that is registered under the class "private light goods". To put that vehicle lawfully on the road, one has to pay an annual fee to obtain one's tax disc. In 1994 or 1995, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a new provision was introduced whereby a vehicle that was roadworthy but was more than 25 years old could be classed as "25 year exempt". That category has since been renamed "historic". Owners of vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1973 must still go through the process of producing their insurance documents and MOT certificate for their vehicle to obtain a tax disc, but they do not pay a fee for it.
      It used to be the case that as soon as a vehicle became 25 years old, it was entitled to claim exempt status, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer froze the exemption so that only vehicles manufactured before 1973 can claim historic status. It is not automatic, however: the owner must go through the process of changing the taxation class on the logbook. Will the Minister give us an assurance today&—or if he cannot, will he look at the issue and come back before Report—to make it clear that it is not the Government's intention to use the clause to introduce taxation on historic vehicles that currently pay a nil duty?
      The Bill's wording gives me cause for concern. The provisions will catch not only the historic vehicle owned by a member of the public but every vehicle housed in a motor museum or other historic collection. Many of those vehicles are not in working condition. They may look pristine, but in many cases the engine or part of the fuel system has been removed, usually for insurance purposes.
      184
      I hope that the Minister is prepared to say that the Bill is not intended to hit those who own, maintain and cherish historic vehicles, and that it will not do so.
      Mr. Boateng: We should, I suppose, be grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for giving us the opportunity to debate the clause. However, it is always the way with Liberal Democrats that even as they enable us to share with the wider world the benefits of an action taken by this Government alone to tackle the menace of dumped and abandoned cars, one is struck by the piety, self-satisfaction and smugness that all too often, I am afraid, characterises Liberal Democrat interventions in any debate. I am afraid that this debate is no exception.
      I detected something else that all hon. Members who are to serve on the Standing Committee will want to bear in mind. I am thinking particularly of the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who will share our many hours of deliberation on these matters. As Liberal Democrat Members share their reflections in Standing Committee, we will find time and again that every word they utter is designed to be replicated at street level in "Focus". The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton gave that impression: I sensed "Focus" coming on. It is therefore only right, to lighten the hours that lie ahead of us, that we should introduce what I would describe as "Focus"-watch. A prize should be initiated for the member of the Standing Committee who is able to identify the most frequently repeated strictures that show a direct link with subsequent publication in "Focus".
      Roger Casale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has issued the sort of challenge that I find almost irresistible. However, I should tell him that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is genuine in his desire for measures to aid the removal of abandoned cars. His constituency borders mine, and he has visited with me abandoned and dumped cars in New Malden on my side of the border. I have done likewise on his side of the border. I hope that the support that he gives to the measures that we are taking to deal with the problem through the tax system will be replicated when we discuss the other measures that we are taking to make it easier for local authorities and other bodies to work together to remove abandoned cars&#3x2014;an exercise in joined-up government to tackle this pernicious problem in our communities.
      Mr. Boateng: Liberal Democrats are often genuine—they have a genuine desire to see their good works replicated in "Focus". I promise to donate to the member of the Standing Committee who identifies the most frequent references for subsequent publication in "Focus" one twentieth of a hectolitre of real ale produced in a micro-brewery of their choice, in any constituency. I fear that I must exempt Liberal Democrat Members from that genuine prize, because that would undermine the whole point of it.
      With that challenge, I turn to the substance of the points that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) rightly drew attention to the no doubt genuine concern of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—have long been worried about the menace of dumped vehicles. We issued

      185
      a consultation paper on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman should know, in March this year the summary of responses to that paper was published and placed in the Library. It was entitled, perhaps not surprisingly, "Report on responses to the consultation paper on Abandoned Vehicles 2001–2002".
      5.45 pm
      The provision must be seen in the context of the wider range of measures for tackling the problem of abandoned vehicles announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 10 April. They include powers to remove vehicles abandoned on the street anywhere in England after 24 hours, instead of the present seven days; increased opportunities to work with the DVLA to remove unlicensed cars; powers to dispose more quickly of unlicensed vehicles removed under DVLA powers after seven rather than 35 days; and easier tracing and clarification of vehicle ownership through additional funding from the invest to save Budget. That will be seen as a comprehensive response to the menace.
      I want to reassure the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) that the new measures in no way affect current policy on vehicles that are exempt, for whatever reason, from payment of vehicle excise duty. That includes classic cars manufactured before 1973. The right hon. Gentleman has a distinguished track record as regards his interest in the preservation of historic cars. Keepers of classic cars who want to take their vehicles off the road, thus paying no duty, will continue to be able to do so, provided that they make a statutory off-road notification, as required at present. There is no intention to bring classic cars into taxation. I hope that reassurance sets minds at rest.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs suggested that DVLA systems might not be capable of handling the proposed change. The DVLA makes strenuous efforts to ensure that the information on its vehicle record is as up to date and accurate as possible. However, we are all fallible; there is always the risk of mistakes at the DVLA, as there is in every human institution. Most vehicles are relicensed at post offices and errors might also be made there. We are taking steps, including the piloting of measures such as the use of bar codes on licensing reminder forms, to ensure that the vehicle record can be updated instantly when the vehicle is relicensed.
      We have no intention of hitting the honest trader or dealer. If the vehicle is taxed, or if the DVLA has been notified of changed circumstances that mean that tax is no longer due, there is no risk that an offence will be committed. I do not accept the charge that this is a motorist-bashing measure, although, to be fair, I do not think that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was making that claim.
      The measure is certainly not designed to catch people who have genuine reasons for licensing their vehicle a few days late. We are not out to hit the honest motorist, but we believe that the motorist who plays by the rules has everything to gain when those who abuse the system
      186
      are brought to book. Honest motorists will welcome the reforms. Motorists are citizens, too, and they are affected by that abuse.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs asked what would happen to vehicles currently wrongly recorded, and said that it was unfair to go after the keepers. It is not our intention to act against keepers who have acted in good faith. We shall need to consult with motorists' organisations and others on the best and fairest way to implement clause 19. It is our intention to consult. We shall focus our attention on ensuring that vehicles that are correctly recorded do not become incorrectly recorded.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked about issuing receipts; that suggestion could certainly be considered as part of our further consultation. I repeat that we recognise the need to protect the keeper who acts in good faith.
      Mr. Flight: In addition to vintage cars, I raised the issue of cars that are used on farms. May I also ask what would be the position of firms whose business is dealing in second-hand cars? I understand that, under the measures, in future they would need to pay VED while such cars were on their forecourt pending sale.
      Mr. Boateng: I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on the latter issue. I believe that in his speech he referred to vehicles that have lived on farms all their lives, which raised the spectre of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I am sure that, with this measure, it is not our intention to bring into the arena those vehicles that were previously outside it, but we must ensure that we have an effective regime, whose integrity is respected. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points to ensure that we get things absolutely right.
      Bearing in mind our intention to ensure that we get the clause right and to consult with the motoring organisations and others on the detail of its implementation, I am sure that, on reflection, hon. Members will find that it has much to commend it. Before finalising the details of the system and bringing it into effect, we will consult on the implementation of a supplementary penalty for late renewal or non-renewal, and the levels of that penalty. Those will be subject to affirmative resolution, and the House will have an opportunity to debate them in due course.
      We are adding this measure to the series of practical measures that are being taken to address a menace that, we have all agreed, can be the bane of our constituents' lives. It degrades the quality of life in all too many communities and is a spur to crime, including arson and vandalism. Action in this area is long overdue and I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the Financial Secretary's reply, which has reassured me on many points. I am glad to hear that he is consulting. When he and his colleagues and officials consult, will they particularly look at retrospection, which he was not able to deal with in his reply?
      Will the Financial Secretary deal with another issue? I have been told by people in the AA that it is an increasing practice for people to register vehicles at an address that they do not live at. The solution is not

      187
      legislative change but tighter practices governing registration at post offices or by post to the DVLA to ensure that identity is checked more rigorously. I hope that the Financial Secretary will ensure that that point is also covered in the consultation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 5 agreed to.

    Clause 23

      FLAT-RATE SCHEME
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Boateng: The clause represents the latest and, I believe, the most significant step that we have taken to simplify the administration of VAT for hundreds of thousands of small businesses.
      Since VAT was introduced, the vast majority of registered firms have been obliged to keep a record of the VAT charged on each individual purchase and sale, and go through the often laborious process of totting up their inputs and outputs when filling out their VAT return. The flat rate that is being introduced on 25 April does away with that requirement for more than 500,000 small businesses with turnovers of up to £100,000. Instead, those businesses will have the option to work out their VAT liabilities as a simple percentage of their total turnover. Instead of making hundreds of calculations each quarter, they will simply have to make one. Instead of spending hours sorting through old receipts, they will be able to concentrate on running their business.
      Mr. Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: May I just develop the argument a little? We estimate that, by reducing the time that those businesses spend filling in forms and reducing their reliance on accountancy services, the scheme will cut compliance costs for the average business by up to £1,000 per year.
      Mr. Chope: Does this scheme already apply beyond the 32,000 small manufacturers, 15,000 small agricultural firms, 11,000 small pubs and 22,000 transport companies that, I have been informed, are the only beneficiaries of the scheme at the moment?
      Mr. Boateng: I do not quite follow the point. The scheme, which I should have thought anyone would welcome, reduces for 500,000 small businesses with turnovers up to £ 100.000 the burden of making those calculations and digging out old receipts. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should be doing more, he is of course entitled to say that, but to him must go the question, "What did you do when you had the opportunity to make a difference by relieving this burden on small businesses?" and answer comes there back, "Not very much." I do not think, therefore, that at this stage it would be right for the hon. Gentleman to cavil at what the Chancellor announced in the Budget, because what—
      Mr. Chope rose—
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity.
      188
      What the Chancellor made clear in his Budget—in response, in some sense, I suppose, to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—is that we intend to go further next year, extending the scheme to a further 200,000 businesses with turnovers of up to £150,000. Therefore, from next April the scheme will be available to some 700,000 small firms in total: more than 40 per cent. of all VAT- registered businesses.
      This is one issue on which it should be possible for the whole House to say, "Good; there is something here that is of benefit to small and medium-sized businesses and not something to cavil about." Anyway, we shall find out when we hear Opposition Members' speeches.
      Let me give the Committee a sample of the reactions that the Budget announcement has received from individual businesses. Jamie Rowland, who set up a bike repair shop in Gwynedd in Wales—he did so last year, so he is still wrestling with the issues—said:
      "The extension of the flat-rate VAT for small business will definitely help me and others, because sorting out VAT takes up a lot of time. The more time I can put into the shop in the early days the better."
      Joanna Marshall, who runs a business designing and making ties in Nottingham, said:
      "I think this is an excellent idea for small businesses. I set up my company two years ago and there is a lot to learn. Taking away a burden like this will make a big difference."
      This valuable and radical measure has been much welcomed by small businesses and their representative groups. It will remove a compliance burden that has been in place for the past three decades. In that spirit, I commend it to the Committee.
      6 pm
      Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the Financial Secretary mistook my request for information as cavilling. I asked him for information because I have an article written by someone called Richard Murphy and I was unsure whether what he states in his article represents a misunderstanding. However, he asserts that
      "the scheme is only available to 32,000 small manufacturers, 15,000 small agricultural firms, 11,000 small pubs and 22,000 transport companies",
      making a total of about 80,000 firms. Yet the Financial Secretary referred to about 500,000 small firms, so has Mr. Murphy got it wrong?
      Mr. Boateng: Mr. Murphy is absolutely right to identify four categories in that 500,000, in giving an approximation of the numbers concerned.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that information. Is Mr. Murphy also right to imply that no other group of firms yet qualifies?
      Mr. Boateng: Mr. Murphy is not quite right. Slightly more than 500,000 small businesses in all sections of the economy will benefit from this measure.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that clarification. I hope that he will now be equally

      189
      helpful in answering a question that has been asked by someone whose daughter owns a hairdressing salon in a small town. He says:
      "Under current VAT rules she pays to Customs & Excise around £7,500 per annum on a turnover approaching £70,000 after deducting the VAT on her supplies etc., and in her own spare time keeps all the required books and receipts."
      He says that under the
      "new scheme she would not keep any records, but would have to pay about £9,000 to Customs & Excise. What sort of help is this?"
      He questions how a scheme has been designed that is
      "meant to help someone where they end up paying more"
      and how has it been worked out
      "that 13 per cent. of turnover would be less than anyone's current VAT payment"
      in the hairdressing business. He also says:
      "To be of any help to my daughter the flat rate for hairdressing should be about 10 per cent., which would leave her about £500 better off. She could then give herself a pay rise of £10 a week, something which she has not had for the last 4 years."
      I make no political point, but I hope that the Financial Secretary can deal with that specific example.
      If the scheme turns out to provide a significant reduction in the burden on business, it will be very welcome. I notice that the estimates as to exactly how much time will be saved have changed significantly from the earlier estimate, but any time that small businesses save is valuable and worth while. However, I should be grateful to the Financial Secretary if he could explain what happens in relation to the records that have to be kept for income tax and corporation tax purposes. If a firm does not have to keep VAT supply invoices for the purposes of VAT accounting, is it exempt from having to keep them for other accounting purposes? If not, what is the purpose of the exemption? Again, that issue has been greeted with some scepticism by several people involved in the very important small business sector.
      Mr. Edward Davey: We welcome the clause.
      Mr. Boateng: Let me deal with the hypothetical question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in relation to the need still to collect receipts for other taxes. There will still be a need to do that because VAT is a real-time tax; people will not need to collect receipts for that purpose, but they may well have to collect them for another purpose.
      The specific issue is that small businesses are understandably concerned that they are collecting the tax on our behalf—that we are using them as tax collectors. We are recognising that fact and saying that, because VAT is a real-time tax, they do not have to collect receipts for that purpose, but they may well have to do so for the other purposes.
      The hon. Gentleman's specific example of a hairdresser strays into individual tax concerns. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to give advice on such matters at the Dispatch Box, but I will happily ensure that Customs and Excise writes to him, or indeed to the individual taxpayer, to outline the proposal's impact on that individual. However, Customs and Excise has given me an illustrative example of the categories of people who
      190
      would benefit front this measure, and it estimates that hairdressers will save about £1,000 in compliance costs. As that information does not relate to the hon. Gentleman's specific example, it is right to share it with the Committee, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it in the way that I have outlined.
      On the general point about small businesses paying more tax, the proposed flat-rate scheme will operate on an optional basis, so only those businesses that believe they will benefit from joining the scheme will opt to take part. Therefore, some businesses may well say that they do not want to take part in the scheme because they and their accountants have calculated that it would not benefit them to do so. Businesses that do not believe they will benefit can continue to account for VAT in the way that they always have done.
      The rates have been calculated to produce a broadly revenue-neutral outcome in each sector, but that clearly means that there will be a net reduction in the amount of tax many businesses pay, as well as significant compliance cost savings. For all those reasons and bearing in mind the general, broad welcome that the measure has received in all quarters, I commend it to the Committee.
      Roger Casale: I wish to make two or three brief comments on the clause. I welcome the new measures, and I am pleased that the Opposition welcome them too, but I rise to speak because the welcome has been distinctly tepid and lukewarm from the Opposition Benches. If the truth were known, there is probably quite a lot of repressed enthusiasm for the measure. After all, it will save small businesses much time and cost. Small businesses make up a growing part of our economy, especially in the service sector, and are great creators of employment.
      That is certainly the case in my constituency, as I know from my dealings with the Merton chamber of commerce, the Wimbledon business group and other small businesses, not least Ad Hoc Business Support, which helps me in my work when I have a particularly heavy case load. I have seen that business grow in the past three to four years. One of the things that held it back initially was the onerous task of having to work out its VAT liability. Indeed, being eligible for VAT at all held it back in the early stages. Increasing the threshold and introducing the flat-rate scheme will save that and similar businesses a great deal of time and could save it up to £1,000 a year, which will make a difference to its competitiveness. I hope that that will underpin such companies' future success.
      My second reason for wanting to speak in favour of the new measure is that it is part of a series of measures that the Government are taking to boost competitiveness and to support small businesses. For example, there was a recent statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reduction of bank charges for small businesses. There are many thousands of small businesses in my constituency, and they will disagree with us about some things, but on the other side of the equation they will also recognise that we are taking a raft of measures, of which this is one, that demonstrate that we are on the side of small businesses, that we want to support them and that we will make the necessary changes to the tax system, as we are doing now in relation to VAT, to cut red tape and to cut business costs. All of that has come from the dialogue between this Government and the

      191
      small business community, which was completely unknown under the previous Administration. In that regard, I mention the work of the Small Business Council in particular.
      I was in touch with the Federation of Small Businesses just today, and it welcomed the measure. It has always made the point that many small businesses feel that they have the onerous task of acting as tax collectors in relation to VAT. This measure demonstrates that we have taken their concerns on board. The small business community wants to work with the Government to improve things, not just in its own interests but because it recognises, as we do, that small businesses will continue to drive our economy in the future and create jobs, and that, by working together, we can reach a solution that works for everybody.
      I very much welcome these measures, which come out of that dialogue between the Government and business. As I said, they are one more demonstration of this Government's support for and commitment to the small business community, and our determination, when possible, to introduce the changes necessary to make small businesses more successful and more competitive in the future.
      Mr. Mark Hoban: I welcome the introduction of a flat-rate scheme for small businesses, although I want to raise one concern in that regard.
      One of the issues that small businesses in my constituency have raised with me in recent months is the administrative burden of VAT. Any action taken to lift that burden will be welcomed by those businesses. My only caveat is the process by which the flat rate is set for particular businesses, and what consultation there has been with trade bodies on whether that rate is appropriate. One of the issues that small businesses will consider—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the circumstances of a hairdresser who would lose out as a consequence of adopting the flat-rate scheme—is whether they would feel obliged, on a regular basis, to calculate their VAT liability if they did not elect to use a flat-rate scheme. Would compliance costs continue because businesses would feel the need, every so often, to re-check whether they would be better off using the flat-rate scheme or the more conventional scheme?
      I hope that the Financial Secretary will speak to trade representatives to ensure that the flat rate that is set is relevant to those businesses and encourages them to take advantage of it, so that they benefit from the lower compliance costs on offer through this scheme.
      Mr. Mark Field: I, too, would like to speak briefly on this point. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) feels that the Opposition's support for this measure is somewhat tepid. In principle, we are comfortable with the measure, which is a positive step forward. The small business sector, in which I operated prior to joining the House, has not been terribly well served by this Government. It is not fair to say that there is a monopoly of good will towards the small business sector on either side of the political divide. It is fair to say, however, that, in essence, these changes, although welcome, represent only a small part of the burden faced by many small business people.
      192
      VAT is one matter on which I have spoken previously in the House—I always felt that I was one of the worst paid pro bono for my tax-collecting skills when I dealt with VAT in my business—and it is an important fund raiser for the Government. There are great concerns, however, about the amount of time that must be spent by any small business man on the various other payroll taxes, which are not affected by the measure.
      Much as I understand the Government wishing to make much of this measure, it is very small. As has been pointed out in various interventions, there will no doubt still be a great burden on many small business men in terms of having to deal with receipts for Inland Revenue purposes, if not necessarily for Customs and Excise. I would be interested, however, to receive guidance from the Financial Secretary on his comments to the effect that the whole process would be revenue neutral. Will he tell us which businesses are likely to suffer under the new provision?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Boateng: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for stressing the importance that the Government attach to consultation with industry, business and the relevant affected sectors. I first recall meeting him many years ago, when I was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson on Treasury affairs. If he was not then a parliamentary candidate, he was at least very active in Wimbledon, and he was noted, at a time when it was not as commonplace as it is now, as someone who always bothered to reach out to small businesses in his constituency and to learn and listen to their concerns. I have no doubt that that contributed to his subsequent success in 1997 and to his re-election last year. That is a lesson that the Labour party has learned, and that we sometimes had to learn the hard way in the years of opposition.
      We have been engaged in a process of consultation in order to arrive at these rates. In response to the points made by the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), the rates are based on information from previous VAT returns submitted by all traders who would be eligible to join the scheme. The rates have been calculated on the basis of producing a broadly revenue-neutral outcome across each sector. We consulted on all these rates, talked to the sectors concerned, and, in some cases, responded to the consultation by reducing the rates proposed for an individual sector. For example, we now have two rates for construction services, instead of one. That was a result of listening to the industry and its concerns to ensure that we got it right and that we met its needs.
      For reasons that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined, it would have been a nonsense to set a single flat rate for all small businesses. Either it would have been set so low that there would be a substantial loss of revenue, or so high that the sector would simply not opt to participate. We want businesses to have a real choice. The rate for a particular business will therefore depend on what trade sector it is in, but, clearly, there will be only one rate for each business. If a business is engaged in two or more sectors with different rates, the flat rate to be applied will be that for the main business sector based on turnover generated. The businesses and trade associations that we consulted felt

      193
      that that was the best solution to this problem. I think that we have got it right, and we are determined to make sure that it is helpful to small businesses.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, the measure should be seen as part of a wider Government commitment to support small businesses and to promote an entrepreneurial culture. No doubt there is still more to be done, and we are determined to do all that is necessary to ensure that we have a culture that promotes the creation of jobs, that helps bridge the productivity gap, and that recognises the vital role that the entrepreneurial spirit plays in creating a sound and dynamic economy.
      I hope that, as a result of this debate, the enthusiasm that-as my hon. Friend pointed out-Conservative Members have so ably repressed will re-emerge. One does not often associate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) with repression in any sense of the word; his enthusiasms are normally plain for all to see. It is unusual for his enthusiasm to be as successfully repressed as it has been on this occasion. However, in the many hours that lie before us in Committee, we will no doubt draw out that enthusiasm. My hon. Friends the Paymaster General and the Economic Secretary cannot wait to have a go at drawing out—-repressions" may be going too far—the enthusiasms of the hon. Member for Buckingham. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26

      CHARGE AND RATES FOR 2002–03
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I and my colleagues wish to debate this clause because it goes to the heart of the Budget strategy and the choices that faced the Chancellor and his team in preparing the Bill and the Budget. We agree with the Government that extra resources are needed for the national health service and for public service investment in general-in our schools, police forces, transport system and care homes. There is a long list of where investment is needed, and there is some agreement that services, particularly the health service, have been deprived of essential investment for far too long. It is our understanding from the analysis in the Wanless report and from the brouhaha and trumpeting of the Budget that it is the Government's intention to find extra resources. We are delighted that, at long last, they have admitted that and have found the money.
      It is interesting that we are debating a clause that introduces the income tax charge and rates for 2002–03. On the same clause in previous Finance Bills, I and other Liberal Democrats have argued the case for extra investment in our public services, such as the health service and schools. We have led the debate and the political argument for extra resources funded by fair taxation. In previous Budgets, we have argued for the rates to be higher than proposed or to reverse the cuts that have been proposed in previous Finance Bills. We did that to try to ensure that precious resources were available for investment in public services.
      194
      This year, the debate is slightly different, because the Government have found the resources in another way. The debate on this clause is about how we should find the resources and about which taxes should be increased so that we can put money into public services. As is well known, the Government have chosen to do that by increasing employees' and employers' national insurance contributions, and we differ from them on that point. We accept their objective of increasing investment, but we are concerned about their tax strategy and about the taxes that they have chosen to increase.
      Although we are forced by the procedures of the House to vote on clause stand part, we would ideally have liked the clause to contain a proposal to put up the basic rate of income tax by 1 per cent. to fund education investment. There should also be a new top rate of tax of 50 per cent. on incomes of more than £100,000 a year to raise the resources that are needed for the investment that we have talked about. Unfortunately, the procedures of the House do not allow us to table such amendments, so we have to signal our intentions by voting on clause stand part. That is what we have done in previous years, and our approach is totally consistent with that.
      Why are we suggesting a different tax-raising strategy from that adopted by the Government? If one compares the proposal for an increase of 1p in the basic rate of income tax with an increase of 1 per cent. in employees' national insurance contributions, we believe that it becomes clear that the income tax rise is fairer and more efficient. It is clear from the analysis carried out after the Budget by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others that the rise in employees' national insurance contributions involves a narrower net and imposes a burden on a narrow group of people. It excludes pensioners and those who live off unearned income or who have substantial unearned income.
      Most pensioners would not pay the extra penny on income tax. They are not income tax payers, because of the age allowances. However, pensioners with substantial incomes would pay the extra penny in the pound and the wealthiest pensioners would pay the most. We are willing to argue the case that, if pensioners are wealthy, they should contribute as well. We believe, like the Government, that the poorest pensioners and those on modest incomes should be protected, and they would be protected under Liberal Democrat proposals just as they are under Government proposals. However, the wealthier pensioners would escape under the Government's proposals but not under ours. We do not see the justification for the Government's approach. In the Budget debate and on Second Reading, we asked them to justify why wealthier pensioners were excluded, but justification came there none. That means that we must debate the issue again tonight.
      More serious for the Government—I am sure that Labour Back Benchers, in particular, feel this—is the fact that those with a significant unearned income are excluded from the rise in employees' national insurance contributions. They are not being asked to contribute any more towards the health service, and that is difficult to understand. We agree with the Government that resources must be raised to turn round the years of underinvestment and underspending in the health service, so we should surely ask the better-off in society to make their contribution. However, the Government's Budget strategy deliberately excludes some of the wealthiest people in

      195
      society, and that is why we stand firm in saying that a 1p increase in income tax is the best approach. It would ensure that everyone, particularly those with the greatest means, would be asked to contribute to a service that is provided to people equally and according to their need.
      Chris Grayling: I do not want in any way to support the principle of tax increases. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that—in contrast to the national insurance route—his argument would place an increased tax burden on, for example, a pensioner with an income of £10,000 to £12,000 a year? That burden will not occur if the Government proceed with their proposals.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. However, the amount of money asked from those on modest incomes would be relatively small because, as I am sure he will accept, income tax is a proportionate tax. People on low incomes will, by definition, pay a very small amount. Most pensioners do not pay income tax, because they are protected from it by the higher age allowances. Therefore, the vast majority of pensioners would not pay under our proposals.
      6.30 pm
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I know the hon. Gentleman is aware that only four out of 10 pensioners pay tax, but is he also aware that nearly 3 million pay it at the 22p rate which, by definition, means that they are on a low income? He is proposing to hit that group of people on fixed low incomes. Only 230,00() pensioners pay the higher rate of tax. His argument about spreading the burden does not work because he would spread the burden disproportionately on pensioners on fixed incomes.
      Mr. Davey: That last phrase is incorrect. We are talking not about spreading the burden disproportionately, but about asking a wider group of people to pay. I am more than prepared to admit that the Liberal Democrats would ask more people to contribute than the Government are asking. I am not hiding that fact. Indeed, I was the person who raised it in the first place; it did not require an intervention to drag that information out of me. Our proposal is fairer. The extra amount that pensioners on £10.000 would have to pay would be tiny. Extremely wealthy pensioners, however, would pay much more under our proposals.
      I note that the Paymaster General did not say why wealthy people with a larger share of income from investment income—unearned income—should be protected from making an extra contribution. It is extraordinary that they are not being asked to contribute to the important endeavour to put the health service in a sounder fiscal position.
      Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman still misses the point about the financial predicament that many pensioners face. They have retired on fixed incomes, perhaps with a small pot of savings. The income from those savings has fallen as interests have decreased to an historically low level. They have experienced yearly increases in council tax which are vastly above the rate of inflation and have no ability to increase their income. So every time another slice is taken out of their income, it is
      196
      another handicap to them making ends meet. That would be the consequence of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It is easy to get caught up in an attempt to deal with the very small number of high earners, but the hon. Gentleman's proposals would have an impact on lower-income pensioners.
      Mr. Davey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions council tax. The Liberal Democrats are the only ones who have pledged to abolish council tax and to replace it with a local income tax. That would significantly help pensioners. They would be much better off as a result of the combination of our policies. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many pensioners on fixed incomes are significantly hit by council tax. That is why we need to reform that pernicious tax, which his party introduced.
      The second part of the Government's tax strategy in the Budget is the 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions. We propose a new top rate of tax of 50p in the pound on incomes above £100,000, which would raise an amount similar to that in the Government's proposal. Indeed, it would probably raise more on a net basis because the Government would not have to pay the higher tax for the many people who are employed in the health service and other public services. Our proposal would liberate an equal amount or more for public service investment. In addition, it would be fairer and more efficient: fairer because it would ask those people who can afford to pay to make their contribution, and more efficient because it would not increase the costs of business.
      We all know from the press reports and the analysis after the Budget how worried business is by the increase in its cost base because of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions. It is a real concern that that might hit jobs, investment and the competitiveness of UK plc. Once again, the Government have ducked out of the hard decisions. They have put a major burden on business when they had an alternative way to raise revenue. That is why I urge Members on both sides of the Committee to ask the Government to think again about their tax strategy by voting against the clause.
      The Committee knows that the Liberal Democrats have been consistent on this matter since, I think, 1989. That is 13 years of consistency on tax policy. In that time, we have argued for increases. Our plans have been fully costed and we have put them before the British people a number of times. Although a majority have not voted for them, some of them have proved in opinion polls to be the most popular policies. We believe that had the Government adopted them, they would have received much greater support and would not have lost the support of British business in particular.
      I do not know whether the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will participate in the debate, but if they do I hope that they tell the Committee how they will find the money for the NHS, our schools and our police. If they do not do that and then vote against the national insurance legislation, they are being disingenuous—indeed, dishonest—with the British people. They say that they want to back the money for the health service, but they do not will the means. Both before and after the Budget, we stood by our election manifesto proposals of June last year to show where the money would come from to pay

      197
      for our policies. Like the Government, we think that the investment is vital. The Conservatives have yet to produce proposals on that.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically confused. For the avoidance of doubt, I put it on the record, as has been articulated by my right hon. and hon. Friends before, that it is the position of the Conservative Opposition that although this country needs to spend more on health, it is by no means clear, through an examination of the systems of health provision across continental Europe, that that expenditure is best made on the basis of moneys raised through tax. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who has a closed mind, my hon. Friends and I have open minds. We will explore the alternatives, see what is best and produce a credible, detailed, costed and attractive alternative to the failures of the Government, which is a damn sight better than the Liberal Democrats have ever managed.
      Mr. Davey: I am delighted to have provoked the hon. Gentleman. That is what I intended to do, but he has failed to clarify the Conservative party's policy. As usual, he promised us that some day soon—or perhaps not so soon—we will hear how they propose to raise the billions of pounds.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Davey: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman holds steady for a moment.
      It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Conservatives will clarify their policy in a year or two, but what about the billions that are needed now for the health service? How would he ensure that the billions going into the health service over the next one, two or three years are funded? It is fine if he supports the Government's approach or our approach, but if he does not support either because he does not support a tax-funded NHS, he needs to say how the money would be found now. If he cannot, the implication is that there would be cuts to the health service in every constituency up and down the country. He has to have an alternative. [Interruption.] Conservative Members groan in their usual way, but they have to tell the people where the money would come from. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where it would come from this year?
      Mr. Bercow: The problem from which the Liberal Democrats suffer is that they have been undergoing a process of intellectual retardation without interruption for some years. If the hon. Gentleman is in the business of offering to the Committee his prescription to remedy the ills of the health service before there has been a proper diagnosis of what those ills are, I can only say that it is extremely fortunate that he did not opt for a career as a general practitioner. At the moment, large sums of money that are allocated to the Department of Health are not spent. As a consequence, treatments that could be provided are not being provided. We will do our homework. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is sensible, 11 months after losing the last election on the last manifesto, to be expected to produce tonight the contents of the next, that only underlines why his party is the minority party and why it will remain so.
      Mr. Davey: If the hon. Gentleman continues to perform like that, I will continue speaking and provoke him even more because it will elucidate for the Committee more information, or lack of information, about the Conservatives' position. The Liberal Democrats are engaged in a major policy review of our public services. We have already produced a consultation paper, which went to our conference in Manchester.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Joe Benton): Order. The hon. Gentleman can continue his party competition outside the Chamber. I should like us to return to clause 26.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that remonstration, Mr. Benton. I was just trying to help the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but of course I will return to the matter in hand. The Committee will be pleased to learn that I was just coming to a conclusion.
      The Government did not adopt our proposals for income tax increases instead of national insurance increases simply because of the little card that they had at the 1997 election. It is about grubby politics, and not about what is best, fairest and most efficient for this country, and I deeply regret that.
      Dawn Primarolo: In advancing his views, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) often talks a good talk, but he does not always follow through. It is a regular claim of the Liberal Democrats that they thought of an idea first, but when looking at this Government's investment, particularly in the health service, we find that we have, at every point, invested more than the Liberal Democrats wanted, and more than would have been yielded by their 1p on income tax or any of their other little ruses.
      The hon. Gentleman says that he does not disagree with the Government that extra money is needed for the NHS, but he disagrees about the method of investment, and he focuses tonight on income tax rates. He says that he would have liked to table amendments to raise the 22p tax rate to 23p and to increase to 50 per cent. the tax on annual incomes of £100,000 or more. What is extraordinary is that he tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to put an extra 1 p on the 22p rate, but he tabled no amendment on a 50 per cent. rate for incomes of £100,000 or more.
      The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who intervened on the hon. Gentleman, made the point, which the hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand, that because of the freezing of allowances, pensioners on higher incomes will be contributing, but when we consider the distribution of income among the small number of pensioners who pay tax on their fixed income, we see that the vast majority would be hit by the 1p rise in the 22p rate which the hon. Gentleman advances.
      As we have said a number of times, the Government's view is that ever since Beveridge, the national insurance system has depended, rightly, on the principle that people contribute while in work for the benefits and services that they need when they cannot work—a sound principle that is being continued by this Government.
      6.45 pm
      Chris Grayling: I suspect that this point is symptomatic of the Liberal Democrats' ability to change their story according to circumstance, but is the Minister

      199
      aware that the 1p on income tax to which she refers was, at the last general election, designed to be spent entirely on education? I am therefore slightly at a loss as to how the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) relates that 1p to the health service tonight.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's prompting. I was going to come to that point next, but I also wanted to make a point about savings. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton talks about pensioners who have savings, but he makes no proposals in his speech or in any of the documents that the Liberal Democrats have produced to change the taxation rates on savings, which would be an issue for pensioners.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is also very interesting. The Government have specifically said that the rise in the national insurance rate will directly contribute to extra spending in the five-year plan for the NHS. The Liberal Democrats have put together a package of amendments on tax, and they spend the money everywhere. They do not match the extra spending that the Government are giving to the NHS; nor do they match our spending on education. Those amendments are just convenient little soundbites in which the Liberal Democrats fail to do precisely what they have implored the Government to do—be direct about what tax is being raised and what it will be spent on.
      The Liberal Democrats then come up with the most extraordinary proposition. Income tax is an annual tax; it has to be renewed annually. Those who vote against this clause seek to prevent the Government from setting any rates for income tax, at a cost to the Exchequer of £102 billion this year and £117 billion next year. The hon. Gentleman needs to decide how he wishes to engage in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said earlier that much of the Liberal Democrats' engagement in debates is not designed for a sensible discussion of the way forward; it is designed so that they can give the soundbites that will go into their "Focus" magazines to misrepresent the true choices facing the people of this country.
      The Government say that a comprehensive health service, free at the point of need, will be funded through the Beveridge principles. We also say that we need more investment in our public services, and with all the work that we have undertaken to build a stable economic framework for growth and for sustainable public services, what is required now is a freeze on allowances and the setting of the tax rates this year at 10p, 22p and 40p again, as we promised at the election.
      We said that we would use the tax credit system to help those in greatest need, to recognise the burdens and extra expenses of having children and to ensure that revenue is put aside for sustained investment, year on year, in the NHS to give us the first-class service that we need. It is about time that the Liberal Democrats stopped playing around with their 1 p and faced up to the true magnitude of the investment in our public services that is necessary to make them first class. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Edward Davey: That was a disappointing reply from the Paymaster General, who chose not to mention the fact that 60 per cent. of pensioners on low and modest incomes would not be hit by our proposals. She could
      200
      have told the Committee that under parliamentary procedures it is impossible to table an amendment to increase the rate of income tax.
      Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why he tabled an amendment to increase 22p to 23p, even though it was not selected for debate.
      Mr. Davey: The amendment was included on the Order Paper so that people could be clear about our policy. Having taken advice from the Clerk, I knew when I tabled it that it was not selectable; I hope that that answers the Paymaster General's point. We want to get our policy on the record. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedures prevent some amending of expenditure and tax Bills—I am very much against those procedures—which means that one has to try to make one's point in other ways, which is what we did. The Paymaster General therefore does not have a strong case.
      The Paymaster General and the Financial Secretary share an antipathy to "Focus" newsletters, which have been effective in Brent and Bristol, where Liberal Democrats made net gains last Thursday—[Interruption].
      Dawn Primarolo: What irritates us so much is the fact that, in many of our constituencies, Liberal Democrats campaign locally on not increasing taxes and cutting public services, but in Committee their representatives have the audacity to argue exactly the opposite.
      Mr. Davey: There are some areas where council tax—an unfair tax supported by the Government and the Conservatives who introduced itx—is too high and hits pensioners. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues around the country are right to campaign both to replace council tax and to cut it. In the House, we have argued for increases in fair taxes that spread the burden of the cost of paying for public services, and we shall continue to do so. That proposal is now before the Committee, which should consider whether it supports increases in the health service budget funded by an inefficient, unfair mechanism or increases funded by a fair and efficient method. I advise Committee members not to support the clause, and urge them to join the Liberal Democrats in the lobby to vote for a fair and efficient way of raising money for our health service.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:x—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 452, Noes 53.

      Division No. 227]

      [6.52 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Barnes, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Baron, John

      Allen, Graham

      Bayley, Hugh

      Arness, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Beggs, Roy

      (Swansea E)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bennett, Andrew

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bercow, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Berry, Roger

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blackman, Liz

      Baird, Vera

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      201

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Boswell, Tim

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dhanda, Parmijit

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dodds, Nigel

      Brady, Graham

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Brazier, Julian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dowd, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Drew, David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Burden, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Burgon, Colin

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Burnham, Andy

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Burns, Simon

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burnside, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Butterfill, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Efford, Clive

      Cairns, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Evans, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fabricant, Michael

      Casale, Roger

      Fallon, Michael

      Cash, William

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Challen, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Flight, Howard

      Chaytor, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Chope, Christopher

      Flook, Adrian

      Clapham, Michael

      Flynn, Paul

      Clappison, James

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foulkes, George

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Fox, Dr Liam

      (Norwich S)

      Francois, Mark

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Clelland, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gibb, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cohen, Harry

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Colman, Tony

      Gilroy, Linda

      Connarty, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Conway, Derek

      Goggins, Paul

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Goodman, Paul

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Gray, James

      Cooper, Yvette

      Grayling, Chris

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Corston, Jean

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cousins, Jim

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cran, James

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Crausby, David

      Grogan, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hammond, Phillip

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hanson, David

      David, Wayne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Davidson, Ian

      Havard, Dai

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hayes, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Heald, Oliver

      202

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Luff, Peter

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Lyons, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hepburn, Stephen

      MCDonagh, Siobhain

      Heyes, David

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hill, Keith

      McDonnell, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacDougall, John

      Hoban, Mark

      McFall, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hope, Phil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Horam, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Howells, Dr Kim

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hurst, Alan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      McWalter, Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      McWilliam, John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Jamieson, David

      Mann, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hassle)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Martlew, Eric

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mates, Michael

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Joyce, Eric

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Meale, Alan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Mercer, Patrick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Merron, Gillian

      Keen, Ann (Brantford & Isleworth)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Kelly, Ruth

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Miliband, David

      Key, Robert

      Miller, Andrew

      Khabra, Piara S

      Mole, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Moran, Margaret

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Morley, Elliot

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mountford, Kali

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Mulin, Chris

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Lammy, David

      Norman, Archie

      Lansley, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Laxton, Bob

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Leigh, Edward

      O'Hara, Edward

      Lepper, David

      Olner, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      O'Neill, Martin

      Letwin, Oliver

      Organ, Diana

      Levitt, Tom

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Page, Richard

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Paterson, Owen

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Pearson, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Perham, Linda

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Picking, Anne

      Linton, Martin

      Pickles, Eric

      Lloyd, Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Loughton, Tim

      Pike, Peter

      Love, Andrew

      Plaskitt, James

      Lucas, Ian

      Pond, Chris

      203

      Pope, Greg

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pound, Stephen

      Swayne, Desmond

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Swire, Hugo

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Syms, Robert

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tami, Mark

      Primerolo, Dawn

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Prisk, Mark

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rammell, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Randall, John

      Timms, Stephen

      Rapson, Syd

      Tipping, Paddy

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Todd, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Touhig, Don

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Trickett, Jon

      Robertson, John

      Truswell, Paul

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rooney, Terry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tynan, Bill

      Ross, Ernie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      Vaz, keith

      Ruddock, Joan

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruffley, David

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Walter, Robert

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watson, Tom

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Watts, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      White, Brian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Simmonds, Mark

      Whittingdale, John

      Simon, Siôn

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Singh, Marsha

      Willetts, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      (Swansea W)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Southworth, Helen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Worthington, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wray, James

      Spink, Bob

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Spring, Richard

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Stevenson, George

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baker, Norman

      Chidgey, David

      Barrett, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom

      Doughty, Sue

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Harvey, Nick

      (NE Fife)

      Heath, David

      204

      Holmes, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Salmond, Alex

      Keetch, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

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

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lamb, Norman

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Laws, David

      Tyler Paul

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Webb, Steve

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Weir, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Oaten, Mark

      Wills, Phil

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilshart, Pete

      Page, Richard

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Price, Adam

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pugh, Dr John

      Bob Russell and

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      John Thurso.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Presiding, as you are, in the Chair so superbly, you may well not yet have heard the rumour that has been circulating over the past couple of hours, and which has also reached the media, that it is possible that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions may seek to make a statement later this evening. That would be a welcome development, were it to be true. You will appreciate the slight difficulty that that would appear to cause: as we are in Committee under your excellent guidance, could you advise the Committee what procedure might be available, were the Secretary of State to make his expected statement and therefore come to the House at last and be accountable for his actions over the past few months? Such guidance would be very helpful not only to the Committee, but perhaps even to the Secretary of State.
      The Temporary Chairman: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the House is in Committee. It is therefore inappropriate for me, as Chairman of the Committee, to comment on any of the issues that he raises in his point of order. It is not for me to express an opinion as to what might happen after the Committee has finished. I say simply that I know nothing of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am here as Chairman of the Committee of the whole House considering the Finance Bill, and I cannot rule on the matter.
      Mr. William Hague: Further to that point of order, Mr. Benton. Respecting your position as Chairman of the Committee considering the Finance Bill, but noting that you represent the authority of the Speaker in the House of Commons at this moment, may I ask you to relay two questions from me, and from other Members, to the Speaker?
      First, would it not accord with all precedent in the House for a Minister wishing to alter, withdraw or correct a previous substantive statement in the House to seek to do so in some way in the House? Is it not extraordinary, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should do so in a statement made solely to the press, and then slink from the Chamber this afternoon while Members were pressing him to come here?

      205
      Secondly—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think I have already ruled on this. I am happy to convey the right hon. Gentleman's wishes to Mr. Speaker, but I cannot do more than that, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will have heard about this himself by now. I now propose to return to the Finance Bill. The Question is—
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Benton. It was quite correct, I am sure, for you to point out that you are chairing a Committee of the whole House. You mentioned the possibility of the Secretary of State's coming here at 10 pm. There are suggestions in the Lobby and elsewhere that there will be a statement at 10 pm, but, as you know, in Committee the debate on the Finance Bill can continue until any hour. Is there a facility that allows the Secretary of State to come here at 10 pm in those circumstances?
      The Temporary Chairman: I made no reference to time, or to a statement. If and when a statement is appropriate, the right hon. Gentleman will know in due course.
      I do not propose to take any more points of order on this matter. I ask Members to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

    Clause 27

      INDEXED RATE BANDS FOR 2002–03: PAYE DEDUCTIONS ETC
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Flight: Clause 27 postpones the normal date for the implementation through PAYE of revised indexation of personal reliefs-17 May-to 17 June.
      First, I want to know the reason for the delay. We realise that the Finance Bill was presented rather later this year, but the basic indexation data must surely have been available to the Inland Revenue in the expectation of its normal implementation. Secondly, I want to be absolutely sure that the month's delay will sort itself out over the year, and that citizens can expect the normal 12 months in relation to the new indexation. I assume that that is the case, but clause 27 does not make it entirely clear.
      Dawn Primarolo: The period for notification following the announcements in the Budget, and hence the necessary delay, are to allow all the tables and other material to be printed and collated, and properly checked, and to enable instructions to be issued to the 1.3 million employers involved. That is obviously necessary.
      There is also provision for a CD-ROM version of the guidance and the tax tables, in accordance with the Carter recommendations. Employers will be given a pack, which we hope will encourage them to let computers do more of the work for them, that work being the administration of PAYE.
      The delay, then, is simply a consequence of the later Budget. It is also intended to ensure that information given to employers is accurate, is in a form usable by
      206
      them, and gives them enough time to forward the instructions. That will be the only consequence of the change.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28

      PERSONAL ALLOWANCE FOR 2003–04 FOR THOSE AGED UNDER 65
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Flight: Clause 28 effectively abandons the 1977 Rooker-Wise amendment in relation to the indexation of personal allowances for 2003–04.
      The freeze in both the national insurance primary threshold and personal allowances will raise £700 million in 2003–04 and £850 million in 2004–05. May I ask the Paymaster General whether there is any proposal to freeze the amounts for 2004–05 as well? That would raise an extra £1.6 billion in that year.
      Our objections are based partly on principle, and partly on the fact that approximately 1 million more people—960,000, I think—will be paying top-rate tax. That is an increase of some 50 per cent., which will hit policemen, nurses and teachers particularly hard and, inevitably, is likely to drive up pay demands in the public sector. Moreover, although the official figures show an increase in the tax take between 1996–97 and 2006–07 of 35.3 to 38.3 per cent., there will be an increase of 5 per cent. if we take into consideration the accounting changes made since 1995.
      I think we have made it abundantly clear that, while we accept the need for additional spending on health care, we oppose the raising of tax without a package of reforms that will deliver improved health care and ensure that the extra money is used effectively rather than simply resulting in extra costs. Only about 60 per cent. of the money raised through tax increases will be spent on health; 40 per cent. will go on tax credits, if we allow for the accounting fiddles in that regard.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman says he opposes tax increases specifically to fund the health service unless reforms are made, yet his party and its Front Benchers have refused to specify the reforms that they want. Is it not the case that they are simply opposed to extra investment in the NHS, full stop?
      Mr. Flight: No, that is not the case. In all sincerity, hon. Members other than me have made the point many times. It involves an issue of principle. While we have a Soviet-style system of delivering health care, while hospitals do not have adequate independence to run their affairs properly and while only some 17 per cent. of expenditure is getting to the front line and there are more administrators than hospital beds—the statistics show clearly that that is the case in Scotland and Wales—merely increasing expenditure will not result in improved delivery.
      Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Flight: Not for a second.

      207
      Our proposition is extremely simple: until we have in place a programme of adequate reforms that will do its best to ensure that extra expenditure delivers better health care, expenditure will risk being wasted. We have made the position clear many times—in essence, it is the reason why we are opposed to this little stealth tax of freezing personal allowances. Furthermore, the particular group that the measure hits is one that the Government are ill-advised to hit and, as I implied, the additional revenue that will be raised is likely fairly substantially to be swallowed up by additional pay demands.
      Lynne Jones: Although I am certainly in favour of the Government increasing taxation so that they can invest more in the health service, I am very unhappy with the clause, which freezes the personal allowance.
      I believe that far too many poor people are paying tax. Rather than freezing the personal allowance, the Government should be increasing it in order to take people out of tax. Some 69 per cent. of people on a third of median male earnings are paying tax. That is nonsensical; many people are paying tax and then having to rely not on tax credits, but on existing means-tested benefits.
      That arrangement is unnecessarily complex. We need reform of the tax system substantially to raise the personal allowance and to reform tax rates so that they are simple. We need to raise the threshold at which middle income earners pay the higher rate of tax. We also probably need a rate of about 30 per cent. in the middle to compensate for the reduced tax that would result from a substantially higher tax allowance. I also believe that there should be a higher rate of tax than the current 40 per cent. and that such taxation should strike high earners, not moderate ones.
      Such reforms are not on offer, but in the meantime, I will not support the clause or the abolition of the changes that took effect following the introduction of the Rooker-Wise amendment.
      Mr. Michael Jack: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this interesting debate.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who I know takes a particular interest in tax matters, made a point that is central to this debate: in justifying the proposal, the Government have not declared any strategy about the number of people who should pay tax. Effectively, the measure has an impact on those who will remain at the basic rate or the lop starting rate—points that I shall develop in a moment.
      As the Paymaster General will recall, on page 75 of the Red Book, at paragraph 4.56, the Government have included a passage entitled "Making work pay for all":
      "The Government has introduced a series of reforms to help make work pay at all levels of the labour market, but especially for those on low incomes."
      In justifying that position, the Government pray in aid their 22p basic rate of income tax. I was delighted to read that that is the lowest rate for 70 years and to see that the Government are moving towards a basic rate of 20p in the pound, which was a Conservative policy. The paragraph also comments on the 10p starting rate.
      If the Government are so proud—at paragraph 4.56 of the Red Book—of saying that they want to make work pay for all, why did they choose the method set out in the
      208
      clause to raise revenue? People whose personal allowance is part of a gate-keeping exercise as to whether work pays will find that work pays less than it would have done if the allowances had been indexed. The policy seems to fly in the face of the Government's chosen course of action of making work pay.
      As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak indicated in her very perceptive remarks, the clause is about the number of people who are brought into the tax system and have to pay tax. I am intrigued to know why, even though only a small amount may be involved, the Government seem to have no regard to the fact that they are bringing into tax a few more people than would otherwise have been included.
      While I considered the implications of the measure, I discovered one or two interesting things on which the Paymaster General might like to comment. Looking back to 1991–92, we find that the number of basic rate taxpayers as a proportion of the labour force was 91 per cent. By 1996–97, that level had fallen to 61 per cent., but under the current Government, it has risen to 74 per cent. We are finding that more basic rate taxpayers are in the tax system than were under the previous Conservative Government. If the number of basic rate taxpayers as a percentage of the labour force is rising, one way of avoiding that process would have been to index the allowances and seek other ways of raising the revenue.
      Mr. Hendrick: Are not more people working now than ever before? As there are so few unemployed people now by comparison with 1990 and 1991, is it not probably a desirable consequence that more people are paying tax?
      Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me use a proportionate measure rather than an absolute one. If I had used an absolute measure, his line of argument would have been entirely correct, but I was aware that if I were to fall into that trap, an argument would be advanced to destroy the point that I am making. With respect to his analysis, he is wrong. I welcome the fact that there are more people in the labour force, which always has a beneficial effect on the tax take, but that is why I used a proportionate measure.
      It is interesting to consider the number of basic rate taxpayers as a percentage of all taxpayers. That proportion was 94 per cent. in 1991 and 63 per cent. in 1996, and it went back up to 76 per cent. in 2001–02. The Government seem to have ignored that rise in the number of basic rate taxpayers, for whom the indexation of allowances at the margin is very important. They must do rather better than simply announcing the stark fact that the measure will happen, which is what the Red Book says; it effectively states merely that personal allowance rates will remain the same. No doubt the Paymaster General will try to justify the measure on the basis that it will raise an extra £700 million in 2003–04 and an extra £850 million in 2004–05, to help the Government's efforts to raise revenue for the health service.
      There are, however, other ways in which the Paymaster General could raise substantially more, especially in relation to her responsibility for the indirect tax system. She could do so if she got to grips with the billions of pounds that seem to be disappearing out of the VAT system, as witness the recent report by the National Audit Office. The Government will no doubt respond that they

      209
      have invested more resources at our ports to deal with smuggling, and that the Bill contains measures to tighten up on VAT, just as previous Finance Bills have done. But even with all that tightening up, it is calculated that over £7 billion is going missing. The question I would like to know the answer to is: what will the investment return be if the Government put in yet more resources? If they will get £7 billion, they can afford to spend £1 billion or £2 billion.
      7.30 pm
      When we were in power, we were challenged about our spend to save initiative, but the principle remains. As the Paymaster General will know, over the years the application of more qualified senior inspectors at the Inland Revenue to some of the more difficult and complex areas of tax, particularly those involving large companies, has yielded considerable amounts of extra tax-well within the scope of this measure. If the Government are going to break faith with the low paid by not indexing their allowances, they have to explain to them why a relatively modest investment in extra facilities to bring in indirect taxes could not surpass by a large measure the amount of money that this proposal seeks to save. If the Government wish to remain true to their cause of making work pay, they have to do quite a lot of explaining of why they are asking the Committee to agree with a proposal that goes fundamentally against that chosen course of action.
      Chris Grayling: The measure completely confuses me. I cannot for the life of me understand why a Labour Government are pursuing a policy that will clearly damage people on low incomes.
      Let me tell the Paymaster General a story about a lady who came to my constituency surgery a couple of weeks ago. She was very confused about her tax affairs. She said, "I do not understand. I seem to be paying tax and I do not have much of a pension. I received bereavement allowance, which I have now lost, and I am paying £200 a year in tax. I have a low income, and £200 a year is lot of money to me."
      We looked through that lady's papers. I am not a qualified tax expert but at first glance it looked as if her tax affairs were correct. Her income was just high enough to pay £200 year in taxation. However, I appreciated why she felt frustrated trying to make do on a low income in an environment where many other costs, such as council tax, are rising sharply. Gas prices have recently jumped upwards. I could understand why she felt under pressure financially.
      Why on earth, then, have the Government introduced a measure that will put that lady's tax bill up? Freezing the personal allowance will mean that she will pay tax this year or next year that she would not otherwise have to pay.
      Roger Casale: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has left out part of the story. Perhaps he would tell the Committee whether, when the pensioner came to see him, he informed her about the pension tax credit, which raises the income of people on modest incomes. I hope that he took the opportunity to point out that valuable benefit to her.
      Chris Grayling: That may well be so. Indeed, for that lady's sake, I hope that she does manage to get back some
      210
      of the money that she is paying in extra taxes; but she will have to get to grips with an extremely complex application process of forms and difficult bureaucracy in order to get back some of the money that the Government are taking away.
      Dawn Primarolo rose—
      Chris Grayling: Perhaps the Paymaster General can tell me the logic of taking money away and giving it back again.
      Dawn Primarolo: To help the hon. Gentleman out, we are discussing clause 28, which freezes the allowances. Clause 29 increases the personal allowances for pensioners. Pensioners are not included in clause 28.
      Chris Grayling: Perhaps the Paymaster General can clarify the matter. My understanding is that the significantly increased amount is for those aged 75 and over. However, even if she is correct, let us look at the gamut of people on low incomes: a student nurse starting her first job, someone earning £4 or £5 an hour in McDonald's, a new graduate in their first job earning a relatively low salary, or someone who has left school and is following an apprenticeship. Freezing the personal allowance this year will increase the tax burden on those people, which should never happen. It is a tax on the low paid and on low incomes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has said, it will do nothing to help to get people into work; it will create a disincentive to work. It will create a burden on those who can least afford it.
      Mr. Hendrick: On the concern about the low paid, why did the hon. Gentleman's party oppose the minimum wage and say that it would cost 1 million jobs, when in fact we have created I million jobs?
      Chris Grayling: I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the years we were in government, year by year, Conservative Chancellors made a virtue of increasing the personal allowance, often above the level of indexation that was required, and of taking people out of taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde has pointed out, that tide is being reversed. More and more people are being caught by basic rate tax than were before.
      Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend accept that, with their work in the field of family credit, the previous Conservative Government showed their regard for those who were in work but on low wages, and it is a tribute to that that the credit has now formed the basis of the various working families and successor tax credits that the Government have adopted?
      Chris Grayling: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. He highlights a fair example of good Conservative practice being adopted by a Labour Government, but none of that explains why this Government have chosen to target a tax change on the

      211
      lowest earners in society—on people with genuinely low incomes who have difficulty making ends meet. It makes no sense.
      Mr. Flight: May I make the point that a father on pay of about £13,000 will pay some £2,500 in tax and get back some £2,700 in child tax credit? What on earth is the point of that?
      Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Too much of what the Budget does involves taking with one hand, giving back with another and creating bureaucracy in the middle, which must ultimately cost money and reduce the amount available for spending on other services, or increase the amount that people have to contribute in taxation.
      This measure represents an unwelcome extra burden on the low paid. It is a second tax burden on public servants and other people who are not in particularly highly paid jobs and who will pay extra as a result of the national insurance increases. As a result of the Budget, a student teacher on £14,000 or £15,000 a year, a student nurse on the same salary, a new policeman and a new doctor will face an additional tax burden of many hundreds of pounds a year. This measure will simply increase the burden on them. It will erode a part of our tax system, the indexation process, that has been there for a generation.
      Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend find it odd that the present hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is opposing the actions of the previous hon. Member for Preston, the co-proposer of the Rooker-Wise amendment?
      Chris Grayling: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting piece of history. It is certainly food for thought for the hon. Gentleman.
      I commend the honesty and commitment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who has rightly pointed out that this is an attack on people who should not be placed in that position. Her concerns are shared by Conservative Members. On this issue, I will certainly join her in the Lobby.
      Mr. Tom Harris: I did not intend to take part so early in the debate, but there is nothing like Conservative crocodile tears to stir me to righteous indignation. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that the clause represents a break with the low paid. I have no idea whether he was on the Government Benches before 1997, but it does not sit well with any Conservative Member to uphold the rights of the low paid, when the Conservative party not only opposed the national minimum wage but opposed the 10p starting rate that this Government introduced in 1997. I believe that it still opposes the working families tax credit, which is aimed specifically at some of the poorest in our society. It opposed the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, and it will doubtless oppose the pension credit.
      Mr. Jack: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might help me to understand the logic of his argument. Why does he prefer to help the low paid through the
      212
      10p starting rate, rather than using such resources to increase personal allowances? Under the latter method, such people would not have to pay tax at all.
      Mr. Harris: I am happy to discuss that later.
      Mr. David Laws: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall continue for a while.
      In a perfect world, we could raise thresholds yearly by inflation plus 10 per cent., but the fact that underpins this Budget is that the national health service was consistently underfunded for 18 years by the Conservative Government. We have taken a principled decision to raise tax in order to put into the NHS the extra money that is needed. Had the previous Conservative Government decided to freeze the thresholds, the consequences would have been far more serious. In an economy with inflation running at 10 or 15 per cent., such action would have constituted a far greater setback to the lowest paid, and to everybody else. Not only did the previous Conservative Government oppose the national minimum wage; they abolished wages councils as well.
      The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke touchingly and with tears in his eyes about nurses being devastated by the freezing of allowances. He also said that, under the clause, any hope of a career for school leavers will disappear over the horizon. However, it is precisely nurses who will benefit from the Budget's general package. Thanks to this Government's handling of the economy, school leavers have been given hope of finding a job. They can find a job even in the health service.
      Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the practical consequences of tax increases for public servants in my area. It is proving increasingly difficult to recruit new teachers and health service workers, and one disincentive is the cost of living in the south-east. The more cost burdens that are added—be they increased council tax, higher national insurance contributions or adverse changes to personal allowances—the less incentive such people have to remain in public services. That is the real consequence of higher taxes.
      Mr. Harris: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about living in the south-east, but I should point out that it is far cheaper to live there today than it was 10 years ago, simply because interest rates are a third of what they were under the previous Conservative Government. The morale of health service workers is better today than it was at any point under the Conservatives, and it is likely to improve greatly in the next 10 years, as investment in the NHS comes through.
      Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is making a brave attempt at defending the indefensible, but will he address the central point that was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak

      213
      (Lynne Jones)? Freezing the allowance is an extremely regressive form of taxation that will disproportionately hit the poorest paid in our society.
      Mr. Harris: I disagree. I have already mentioned several Government initiatives that will ensure that the lowest paid in our society have the best protection, even under the new regime that the clause will introduce.
      In accusing the Government of attacking the lowest paid, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned one of his constituents. I should tell him that, before the national minimum wage was introduced, some people were being paid £1.40 an hour. To such people, it makes no difference whether thresholds have been frozen since time immemorial. They were being paid so little that work could not possibly pay. Thanks to the measures introduced by this Government, the lowest paid will continue to reap the benefits of a redistributive Budget, which are far more significant than anything that the Conservative party could have offered when in government.
      Mr. Hoban: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the view of Andrew Dilnot, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that the most effective way to relieve poverty is to lift people out of the tax bracket by increasing personal allowances, rather than mucking about by introducing measures such as a 10p rate?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Harris: The short answer is no, but the longer answer is that the IFS has also said that, even according to the lowest estimate, through positive economic and financial policy this Government have taken more children out of poverty than have any other Government.
      Mr. Flight: Why does the hon. Gentleman describe the Budget as redistributive, given that the Prime Minister said on "Breakfast With Frost" that it is not?
      Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I am not a spokesman for the Prime Minister. I am not an economist, but I can call a spade a spade, and I can tell that this Budget, like all its predecessors since 1997, is redistributive. That is why I support it, and why I will vote for the clause.
      Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in opposing the Government's proposed increases, and by talking about a Soviet-style system, the Opposition give the game away? They do not believe in state support for the health service, and the real reform agenda that they do not mention is a privatisation programme that dare not speak its name.
      Mr. Harris: The Conservatives cannot challenge my hon. Friend's comments, because they have refused to explain their plans for the NHS. That makes me extremely suspicious—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the clause.
      Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
      214
      The clause is necessary. It will not harm the lowest paid in our society, and certainly not as much as it could have under previous policies. I am delighted to commend it to the Committee, and I shall cut my losses there.
      Mr. Hoban: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). It enables me to address some of his comments about how the money will be spent—an issue to which I shall return in a moment.
      It is right to note that the number of higher rate taxpayers has increased by 50 per cent. since this Government took office, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) I have spoken to constituents who are concerned about that. One constituent who wrote to me recently was horrified to discover that her husband had just breached the 40 per cent. threshold. She felt that his was not the sort of job that one would expect to incur tax at a 40 per cent. rate. Her point was that incomes that are low in the context of the area that I represent are getting caught in the 40 per cent. tax bracket. Of course, the freezing of personal allowances next year will exacerbate the problem. People who get reasonably small pay increases may well cross from the basic rate tax bracket to the higher one, and from the 10p starting rate to the higher rate.
      The drift of people towards higher tax rates is a consequence of the freezing of the personal allowance—a point that all hon. Members should take on board. It impacts on incentives to work. It impacts on whether people can leave low-paid jobs to improve themselves and meet their aspirations for themselves and their families.
      We need to be careful when we explain to those constituents who will slip into the higher rate tax bans exactly why personal allowances will be frozen in 2003–04. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said that the money will go to save the NHS. I remember that in last week's debate on the national insurance paving motion he said that the money would be allocated to saving the NHS. If he had read the Red Book, he might have discovered that in fact the surplus on the Budget will increase over the 2003–04 financial year, as a consequence of the actions taken by the Government in the Budget. That is shown in table 2.4 and I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has his copy in front of him.
      Table 2.4 states that the surplus on the previous Budget was £4 billion. In the current Budget, that surplus will increase to £7 billion-an increase of £3 billion. The cost to taxpayers of the freezing of personal allowances in 2003–04 will be £0.7 billion, so we will penalise the low paid and all those who will slip into a higher rate tax bracket simply to expand the Government's surplus. The money will be spent not on saving the NHS but on increasing the surplus that will be available for the Chancellor to release in later years. There is no apparent reason why personal allowances should be frozen for that financial year and it is difficult, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to claim that it is being done to save the NHS. That argument is not reasonable.
      The Chancellor will hit the very people—the low paid—he has set out to help in so many of his Budgets, simply to increase the surplus. If personal allowances are frozen, lower paid people who receive pay increases may start to pay the starting rate of tax or the basic rate of tax. It is a retrograde step. No party has a monopoly on

      215
      compassion and Labour Members should consider the impact of an unnecessary tax increase of £0.7 billion on the very people they seek to help.
      Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to explain the measure to one of his constituents, but he should explain to the Committee how he can speak on behalf of low paid people who will, he says, be adversely affected, and at the same time speak for a party that did nothing in government to help poor and vulnerable people. In fact, the Conservatives pushed millions of people and families into poverty. In opposition, his party has opposed every measure that the Government have taken to redress that wrong.
      Mr. Hoban: I am staggered, because to my recollection the Conservatives did not oppose measures such as the Tax Credits Bill. In government, we took steps—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) outlined earlier—to alleviate poverty. We are now considering the record of this Government and the impact that this measure will have on the lower paid.
      The freezing of tax allowances will also have an impact on the people whom the Budget did not help. Many childless couples and single people will have lost out through the 1 per cent. increase in NI contributions, and many of them are on relatively low incomes. The uprating of the personal allowances would have mitigated some of the impact of that tax increase. Those people will not benefit from the tax credits that the Government have introduced and they will be hit twice—by the increase in NI contributions and by the freezing of personal allowances. The Government are making a double dip into the pockets of childless couples and single people. Given that this tax increase is not necessary to fund public spending increases in 2003–04 and in subsequent years, the Government should take this opportunity to protect the interests of those who will suffer from this measure. The Government should recognise that there is more than one way to help those who are most in need.
      Mr. Laws: I considered not taking part in the debate, but so enlivening has it been that I cannot resist the opportunity. We have heard several contrasting contributions from Conservative Members. We started with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who expressed his concern about the effect of the change on people on very low pay, and then we ended with the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who expressed his concerns about higher rate taxpayers.
      Mr. Hoban: I wish to correct the impression that the hon. Gentleman is giving to the Committee and to casual readers of the daily—
      Roger Casale: The Daily Mail.
      Mr. Hoban: No, but I nearly said the Daily Record, which is a completely different newspaper. I meant to say the daily Hansard report. I did not speak only about higher rate taxpayers. In fact, I devoted much of my remarks to the impact on lower rate taxpayers.
      Mr. Laws: Those who read the hon. Gentleman's comments in Hansard tomorrow will see the slightly different emphasis that he placed on the matter compared
      216
      with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. We do not need to look to the future to judge the Conservatives' priorities, because we have their record in government over a long time when they placed the reduction of the basic rate of income tax and, to some extent—they will be pleased to hear me say this—the upper rate of income tax as a priority over raising the personal income tax threshold or introducing a lower rate of tax such as the lop rate. That is on the record in their Budgets and in the memoirs of Lord Lawson, who specifically deals with that issue and states his preference for reducing the basic rate of tax—a less progressive measure—as opposed to increasing the personal tax allowance.
      Mr. Flight: Is it a good thing that another 1 million people, or 50 per cent. more, have been brought into the higher tax band? That band will now include people such as teachers and doctors.
      Mr. Laws: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because he will know that raising the personal tax allowance, as opposed to cutting the basic rate of tax or introducing a lop tax rate, has been the policy of my party. I sought to contrast the present views of the Conservatives on freezing the tax threshold with the views that they held in office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us—if the Conservatives have a tax strategy at the moment—whether they would still focus on reducing the basic rate of tax or on the more progressive measure of increasing the personal tax allowance.
      Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is devoting most of his remarks to the history of the Conservative party in government. I remind him that the Conservatives maintained indexation and, indeed, on several occasions increased the thresholds by more than the rate of inflation. Today we are talking about a Labour Government who have abandoned indexation and I suggest that he devotes his remarks to that topic.
      8 pm
      Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not want to mention the occasions when the Conservative Government froze the level of the personal income tax allowance—something that he has criticised this evening. I do not want to be drawn even further into the quandary that is Conservative policy on taxation and the health service, so—lest hon. Members feel that I am not being equitable in my criticisms—I shall move on to discuss the Government's position with regard to the personal income tax allowance.
      The Government should take no pride at all from freezing the personal income tax allowance. As has been stated, that is a less progressive reform of the tax system than the 10p rate that the Government introduced. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said earlier that many people are on such low incomes that they do not pay a significant amount of income tax and that therefore they have been influenced more by the minimum wage and tax credits. That is true, but the Government's reforms of the personal tax system—in the past few years they have reduced the basic rate and introduced a 10p rate—contrast with the proposal to freeze the personal allowance, which is clearly regressive rather than progressive.

      217
      Why has the change been introduced in this Budget? It has not been introduced primarily to bolster the Government's surpluses, as the Government are projecting significant borrowing on their Budget accounts, on the old Conservative basis. I believe that the Government chose to freeze personal income tax allowances because they had made a commitment in two general election campaigns not to change the basic rate of tax. As a consequence, they had to find other ways to increase the tax burden.
      As I have said, the freeze on personal income tax allowance is regressive, and the rise in employers' national insurance contributions will hit jobs. The changes are also unfair, as the Government have also increased employee national insurance contributions. That is a tax on jobs from which many wealthy people are exempt as, although they could afford to pay more tax, they may not be in work.
      For all those reasons, my party opposes freezing the personal tax allowance.
      Mr. Mark Field: Mr. Gale, you have missed an enthralling debate on this matter over the past three quarters of an hour. However, I shall not detain the Committee for long.
      Most of the important points on this matter have been made by those of my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) also made a helpful contribution. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) is not present at the moment, but his contribution was also helpful, albeit rather more inadvertently.
      Many people are worried that the proposal is too complicated. As has been noted by hon. Members of all parties, some people earning relatively small sums of money will find that they have to pay extra tax. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) that the tax credits scheme comes into play in this regard. People earning modest sums—say between £12,000 and £14,000 a year—will end up paying a large proportion—£2,000 or more—in tax, but they will get more than that amount in tax credits.
      It is nonsensical to have so complicated a system. We need to be more honest in our approach to taxation, and the Chancellor's plans for tax credits are based on the fact that they do not count as public expenditure because of how they are implemented. That also muddies the waters of public spending.
      I agree too with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who said that the complication introduced into the system over the past two or three Budgets results from the Government's pledge not to increase the headline rates of income tax at the basic and higher rates. However, although the strict letter of that pledge has been kept, one consequence of not increasing the allowances even to take account of inflation—they are not going to be indexed in any way—is that, in effect, tax rates will be increased.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) pointed out, one effect of the Government's tax policy over the past five years is that
      218
      the number of people paying the highest rate of 40 per cent. has risen from about 2 million to about 3 million. To that extent, the spirit of the 1997 pledge not to increase taxes has been broken, if not the letter.
      Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend represents a London constituency. As salaries rise to keep pace with living costs, will not more and more people in London fall into the 40 per cent. band?
      Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to indulge in special pleading, but that is a problem facing all hon. Members with London constituencies. The electorate of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) is probably even more middle class than mine in Cities of London and Westminster. Hon. Members with seats in London and the south-east increasingly find that people in those constituencies on incomes that are comparatively modest find themselves in the upper tax rate band.
      That is a real problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) spoke earlier about how it affects people working in the public services. Nowadays, it is very difficult to attract people into the public services—or even into relatively low-paid jobs in private hospitals or private schools, or in shops—without paying some sort of London weighting. That could be the public sector London weighting, or a private sector weighting. All too often, people facing the very high costs of housing and of living in London and the south-east find themselves heading inadvertently for the upper tax rate.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart is not present, as I thought that his comments about the NHS—about which he talked at great length—were a little rich. To a large extent, health matters as they affect his constituents are out of his hands, given the role of the Scottish Parliament. The pro rata tax expenditure on health in Scotland and Wales is much greater than it is in England, and it is ironic that there should be so little satisfaction about that. This is supposed to be a Budget for the NHS, but the Government must give close consideration to the question of how effectively the money may be spent.
      Mr. Hoban: I should hate my hon. Friend to sit down without saying more about tax credits and low pay. Every low-paid person will be affected by the tax increases that will flow from the freezing of personal allowances. However, does my hon. Friend agree that an unusual aspect of the proposal is that not everyone will benefit from the system of tax credits? The take-up rate for tax credits is something like two thirds of all those who are eligible. Many people will therefore lose out as a result of the provisions in the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that they will not catch up through the tax credit system, as it is quite complicated?
      Mr. Field: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say in response. My hon. Friend is a former chartered accountant, and therefore a greater expert than I on these

      219
      matters. I am afraid that I am one of those hon. Members who used to belong to the legal fraternity, but my hon. Friend can crunch the figures.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman does not have to apologise.
      Mr. Field: The Financial Secretary is another former member of the legal profession. I served only as a solicitor, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was a barrister.
      Mr. Hoban: He was a distinguished barrister.
      Mr. Field: He was a distinguished barrister, so perhaps I should refer to the Financial Secretary as the right hon. and learned Member for Brent, South—but perhaps not.
      Roger Casale: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has not tried to build his remarks on the crocodile tears of a Conservative defence of the low paid. The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on the complexity of the tax system, and he has raised some interesting points. He is opposed to freezing the thresholds, but what would he propose instead? If he were to develop his argument further, I am sure that we would find him proposing something even more complex than what is contained in the Bill.
      Mr. Field: That is a fair comment, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for complimenting me on touching on the question of complexity. I feel strongly that there should be indexation. The system has become increasingly complicated but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) pointed out, roughly one third of those who qualify for tax credits do not claim them. There is a real risk that a significant number of people who pay tax by PAYE—they often do not realise just how much they are paying, as the money is taken straight out of their pay packets—will not claim the tax credits for which they qualify. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
      One thing that the Government can do is increase advertising to ensure that people are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled. Many elderly people, in particular, are unaware of the credits as they may not have been part of the work force for some time. None the less, this seems to be an idiotic system. If we had a blank sheet of paper before us, we surely would not design an income tax system in which millions of people on low incomes pay tax and can then claim even more than that in various credits.
      Dawn Primarolo: I have been a little startled at some of the assertions made by Conservative Members, but it has nevertheless been extremely refreshing to hear how deeply concerned some of them are about the plight of those on low incomes, families trapped in poverty and the crucial issue of ensuring that people are aware of their entitlements and rights. However, I was particularly startled by the speech of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) when I recall that social security legislation under the Conservative party, when in government, meant that there was no obligation on the Department of Social Security to notify people of
      220
      their rights. Instead, they had to guess them. Therefore, it will be of enormous benefit if all Members of all the political parties in the House can agree that eradicating child poverty from our society is a principle to which every Member is committed, even if we disagree on the methods of doing so.
      Whenever I have challenged Conservative Members, outside the Chamber, to make such a commitment, they have declined to do so.
      Mr. Mark Field: Will the Minister give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: I am more than happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman will put on record his pledge to see the scourge of child poverty eradicated from our society, even though his party doubled the number of children living in poverty.
      Mr. Field: Everyone on both sides of the Committee is in favour of eradicating child poverty, but one difficulty with child poverty is definitional. In the past—certainly prior to 1 May 1997—I recall that Labour Members were keen to ensure that statistics were bandied around when child poverty was seen as a relative value. Obviously, with many families becoming more affluent, relative values are almost meaningless. If there is an absolute rather than a relative value, I will be only too happy to join the Minister in her crusade to end child poverty.
      Dawn Primarolo: I will not go down that road, Mr. Gale, because I am sure that you would rule me out of order, except to say that what the hon. Gentleman says is a load of rubbish. He does not want to acknowledge the rising level of incomes in our society and the fairer distribution and share of the growing wealth that has taken place since the Government were first elected.
      I have no problem in discussing elsewhere with the hon. Gentleman definitions of poverty. When parents cannot afford to buy their children a new pair of shoes because they do not have enough money, that is a pretty good indication. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's unequivocal pledge that he is prepared to join a campaign to eradicate child poverty, and I hope that his colleagues will join him.
      Mr. Jack: Will the Minister give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: I hope that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is about to make the same commitment.
      Mr. Jack: I wanted to pick the hon. Lady up on her point about the distributional effects of the Government's tax policies. As an exercise in the clarity and transparency of the Government's policies and to enable us to understand some of the things to which she has referred, will she commit to answering again the question first tabled in 1981 by the then hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on tax—direct and indirect—so that we might gauge the effect of the measures through the deciles of income that used to be at the centre of that question, or will she explain once and for all why she will not answer it?
      8.15 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because this has been debated in the House many times, the distribution of indirect tax is imprecise and difficult to measure. Are we to assume that every household smokes or consumes a certain amount of beer, whether from a small brewery or not?
      Mr. Laws: Will the Paymaster General give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to finish one point before giving way on the next.
      In advancing the 10p tax rate, reducing the basic rate of tax and designing our tax measures, whether they be tax credits or changes to the tax system, to ensure that maximum benefit goes to those on the lowest incomes, the Government have substantially increased those incomes. When I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, I will give some examples of how significantly incomes have been increased.
      Mr. Laws: On the non-continuance of the previous series of figures on the tax burden, although I heard the Paymaster General's criticisms of the previous methodology of deriving the tax burden, does she recall using precisely the same figures, to great effect, in opposition?
      Dawn Primarolo: I admit that I remember being in opposition, but it has no glowing attraction. I much prefer being in government and taking decisions. I will give the hon. Gentleman some figures to consider.
      A single person aged 25 or over, working 35 hours a week on the national minimum wage—which was opposed by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties—will be £21.55 a week better off as a result of the working families tax credit. A single-earner family on half male mean earnings, with two children, will be £3,490 better off since 1997.
      Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend will wait a moment, I will give way to her.
      These are hardly the actions of a Government who do not care about those on low incomes. As I have said, we must contrast our record with that of the Conservative party when in government.
      I know that I should return to the clause before you reprimand me, Mr. Gale, I will give way to my hon. Friend and then return directly to the clause.
      Lynne Jones: The question is whether those who cannot afford to buy shoes for their children, to use the Minister's example, should be paying tax at all.
      Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to indexation, the Rooker-Wise amendment and the true cost to families in each tax bracket.
      Clause 28 freezes the personal allowances for those under 65. Along with the freeze on the national insurance threshold, that will raise £700 million for the Exchequer next year and £850 million the year after, helping to fund
      222
      the increase in investment in the national health service. It spreads the burden of contributions wider than simply being placed on earners. As I have said, clause 29 will extend the age-related personal allowances for those aged 65 or over beyond indexation.
      Conservative Members oppose the clause. They made great play of ignoring the Rooker-Wise principles. I took the precaution of reading the debate that took place in 1978. It is a very important debate, and I hold both hon. Members who moved the amendment, especially the late Audrey Wise, in great respect as regards their intentions in doing so. In the debate, Audrey Wise made it clear that a Government who were freezing the allowances would have to come to this House to explain why automatic indexation was not taking place. That is exactly what we are doing in relation to this year. We are not talking about indexation having gone for ever, but about what happens as result of this Budget.
      As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) pointed out, Conservative Members showed no hesitation and expressed no worries about the poor when they froze personal allowances in 1993–94, nor when they did it again in 1994–95. They were not freezing allowances, as are this Government, to use the money to spend on investment in public services—quite the reverse. Hon. Members may recall that I reminded the right hon. Member for Charn wood (Mr. Dorrell) that his Government's Budget in 1994 cut £10 billion from public expenditure. The Conservatives were paying the cost of economic failure. The breathtaking argument advanced by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) was that we should not be raising any more tax because the economy was looking quite good—we should just borrow more if we wanted to invest. That would be a return to exactly the policies that got the last Conservative Government into such a dreadful mess.
      Conservative Members said that they were concerned that the increase meant that higher rate taxpayers would pay more.
      Mr. Jack: The Paymaster General rightly drew our attention to the fact that a decision had to be taken about the suspension of the Rooker-Wise amendment, and said that the Committee would require an explanation. So far, she has announced that a sum of money is being raised and told us what it will be used for, but she has said neither why that particular mechanism—the freezing of the allowance—was the chosen vehicle for raising the money, nor what others were rejected.
      Dawn Primarolo: If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient, I am coming to that. I am trying to deal with questions in sequence rather than making my comments, then answering all the questions at the end out of sequence.
      The Chancellor made it clear that he believed, based on the Beveridge principles, that all members of the community should make a contribution to increases in spending in the public sector. I shall give the figures so that hon. Members know exactly what we are talking about before their imaginations run riot. The changes resulting from freezing the allowances will be equivalent to 28p for the starting rate taxpayer, 49p a week for the basic rate taxpayer and 80p a week for the higher rate taxpayer. Surely, Conservative Members do not expect us

      223
      to believe that 80p a week will force millions of people into the upper rate tax bracket. Of course, that is not so, as they know full well. Freezing personal allowances—I absolutely acknowledge that that is the impact—spreads the burden of the contribution widely, as the Chancellor wanted to do in line with the Beveridge principles. Those on the lowest incomes will be greatly assisted by the interaction between the family tax credit and the working tax credit, to the point where there will be no extra charge to them.
      Great play was made of the higher rate of income. The higher rate threshold is –34,515 in 2002–03. That hardly qualifies as a low income. The Government have considered where to raise the money for investment in first-class public services. We are increasing non-health spending by 2.5 per cent. in real terms in 2004–05 and 2005–06. We want to place the national health service on a sustainable long-term financial footing, as do all members of our community. We are increasing the UK's health spending by 7.4 per cent. a year in real terms over the next five years, and by more than £40 billion between 2002–03 and 2007–08. My constituents and people I meet on the doorstep tell me that they are prepared to invest that money in their health service. They do not say, "Our incomes are lower, so we don't want to make a contribution."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) asked about people on low incomes. I remind her that 50 per cent. of families with children are better off in terms of actual income and will be better off as a result of the improved quality of the health service when the investment is made. Single people aged 25 or over working 35 hours a week on a minimum wage are better off and will have access to improved public services. Because of the tax and benefit reforms that we have made since 1997, the poorest fifth of families will on average be £2,400 a week better off—[Interruption.] I am sorry. They would love me to say that, but I think that the Chancellor would have something to say about it. They will be £2,400 a year better off as a result of our changes, better public services and higher investment. If we said to those people, "You are not to contribute even a small amount to your health service, even though you have vastly improved your financial position as a result of this Government's investment in your future", they would find that bizarre, as they would find it bizarre to hear hon. Members suggesting that they are not prepared to pay.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Of the number of people on low incomes who are being brought into the income tax net as a result of the freezing of personal income tax allowances, what proportion will gain from the Government's tax credit policies and what proportion will not benefit at all?
      Dawn Primarolo: I shall be very careful in giving the answer, because I do not want to mislead the Committee on that matter, and I will check carefully whether I have answered the hon. Gentleman correctly.
      The working tax credit, the child tax credit and the pension credit, linked to the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, the £200 a year allowance for heating and the changes that we have made to indexation for over-65s—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows that people on low income do not represent just one group. Presumably, he is expecting me to deal with the income of each and every group where there may be
      224
      people on low incomes. The combination of all the measures I mentioned ensures that the very lowest incomes continue to increase the most. The hon. Gentleman can confirm that by studying the distributional impact charts in the Red Book and by talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who is a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, one of whose recommendations dealt with the matter.
      8.30 pm
      The right hon. Member for Fylde made many interventions; the final one was to point out that we should do more about avoidance. That is rich coming from a party that tells us that we are introducing too much complexity and red tape to the tax system, while telling us that people who should pay tax are not doing so, even though when the Conservatives were in government they did nothing about that problem. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the Finance Bill, he will see that closing avoidance loopholes will raise £740 million next year and more than £1 billion in the following year, ensuring that those who try to avoid tax are encouraged to pay it.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should consider her words carefully. She said that the previous Conservative Government did nothing about avoidance. She might remember that the last Finance Bill before the general election in 1997 included a range of measures that built on previous initiatives on the issue. We can debate their effectiveness in another place at another time, but the Conservative Government took action on many aspects of avoidance and the hon. Lady knows it.
      Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to VAT. I do not mind debating the record of his Government or scrutinising it, but I do not recall that they ever made an assessment of the problems of VAT fraud. I certainly remember that they got their forecasts wrong; there was one year when £6 billion of VAT receipts disappeared and could not be accounted for—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman specifically raised VAT avoidance and I stand by what I have said. I do not recollect that his Government undertook the assessment that we have made, nor did they publish either figures or strategies as we have done under the able stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
      For all the reasons that I have given—investment in public services, ensuring a fair contribution, an understanding of the decision to freeze allowances this year for the under-65s—I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 187.

      Division No. 228]

      [8.32 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bailey, Adrian

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Baird, Vera

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Banks, Tony

      (Swansea E)

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Barron, Kevin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Austin, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Bennett, Andrew

      225

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Best, Harold

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Betts, Clive

      Gerrard, Neil

      Blackman, Liz

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Gilroy, Linda

      Blizzard, Bob

      Godsiff, Roger

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Borrow, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Grogan, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Havard, Dai

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Haley, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Burden, Richard

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Burnham, Andy

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heyes, David

      Casale, Roger

      Hill, Keith

      Challen, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chaytor, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clapham, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Clelland, David

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Illsely, Eric

      Cohen, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Colman, Tony

      Jenkins, Brian

      Connally, Michael

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Corston, Jean

      Joyce, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Kelly, Ruth

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Khabra, Piara S

      (Copeland)

      Kidney, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kilfoyle, peter

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      David, Wayne

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davidson, Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Laxton, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Lepper, David

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Levitt, Tom

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Linton, Martin

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lloyd, Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Love, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lucas, Ian

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Lyons, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Doran, Frank

      McCabe, Stephen

      Dowd, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Drew, David

      MacDonald, Calum

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McDonnell, John

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      MacDougall, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McFall, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Mclasaac, Shona

      Efford, Clive

      McKechin, Ann

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      McWalter, Tony

      Fisher, Mark

      McWilliam, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Follett, Barbara

      Mann, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      226

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simon, Siôn

      Martlew, Eric

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Singh, Marsha

      Meale, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Helen

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tami, Mark

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark

      Pike, Peter

      Touhig, Don

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg

      Truswell, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tynan, Bill

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vaz,Keith

      Purchase, Ken

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Purnell, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Watson, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Robertson, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Ernie

      Winnick, David

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wray, James

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mr. Ian Pearson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bruce, Melcolm

      Allan, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burnside, David

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Baker, Norman

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Cash, William

      Barker, Gregory

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Baron, John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Barrett, John

      Chidgey, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Chope, Christopher

      Berith, Rt Hon A J

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Collins, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Conway, Derek

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Brady, Graham

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Breed, Colin

      Davis, Rt Hon Davis (Haltemprice)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dodds, Nigel

      227

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Doughty, Sue

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Oaten, Mark

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      OÖpik, Lembit

      Evans, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Pickles, Eric

      Flight, Howard

      Price, Adam

      Flock, Adrian

      Prisk, Mark

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pugh, Dr John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Randall, John

      Francois, Mark

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gibb, Nick

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Goodman, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Ruffley, David

      Hams, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Salmond, Alex

      Hayes, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heald, Oliver

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heath, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

      Hermon, Lady

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hoban, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spink, Bob

      Holmes, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Horam, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Streeter, Gary

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Thurso, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Trend, Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyne, Andrew

      Laws, David

      Walter, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Waterson, Nigel

      Letwin, Oliver

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Weir, Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Whittingdale, John

      Lidington, David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Wiggin, Bill

      Loughton, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Luff, Peter

      Willetts, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maples, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Wishart, Pete

      Mates, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Moore, Michael

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 29

      PERSONAL ALLOWANCES FOR 2003–04 FOR THOSE AGED 65 OR OVER
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Flight: The clause, as hon. Members are aware, raises the question of age-related personal allowances. I want to draw attention to two issues, aspects of which I am not sure that the Government have fully taken on board. As a result, many pensioners with an income below the national average will have no benefit whatever from the increased allowances. In particular, almost 1 million with modest pensions for which they have saved for years, and whose earnings are about 75 per cent. of national average earnings, will be short-changed.
      The first issue is that the restrictions clawing back the age-related allowances are not being indexed or increased. The Government have failed to point that out, as one might have expected. As the Committee will be aware, if a retired person's taxable income exceeds £17,900 per annum, he or she loses £1 of age-related personal allowance for every £2 of income above that sum. Those with an income of £21,980 per annum have no age-related allowance. Those who still qualify for the married allowance are in a similar position, as that allowance will not increase.
      8.45 pm
      Why are the Government not increasing the level at which the age-related personal allowance is clawed back? Surely it is wrong for pensioners with incomes below the national average wage to have their personal allowances restricted, especially when the Government have made so much of wanting to do their best for pensioners.
      The second issue on which I want to concentrate is that of certain forms of insurance saving. Again, the Government make their point about wanting to increase pension saving and people's savings for old age, but when people cash in United Kingdom-based with-profits income bonds, the sum realised is treated as income for tax purposes even though those involved may not have any immediate tax liability because they are only standard rate taxpayers. The effect is that people with modest incomes will lose their age-related allowances for the year in which they realise those savings for their old age.
      As I have said, pensioners with incomes of £21,980 have absolutely no additional allowance, yet their incomes are £1,000 below the national average. As Age Concern has said, many older people with modest incomes will not benefit from the higher age allowances, yet the expenditure of people in retirement is often increasing faster than the rate of inflation. The 10 per cent. council tax increase—it is often considerably more—has hit pensioners quite hard. Obviously, pensioners may have to pay nursing home costs for themselves or for their partners or spouses, and those costs are rising substantially faster than the rate of inflation.
      I object to the Government's making a great noise as usual in saying what wonderful things they are doing for pensioners, given that, as with last year, many people in the middle and pensioners with incomes below the national average will not benefit at all. The arrangements

      229
      have been structured in a sufficiently devious fashion so that they will receive no increase in their personal allowances in 2003–04.
      Will the Government consider whether it is reasonable, in principle, for the threshold at which the age-related personal allowances are withdrawn to be indexed, together with other personal allowances? If we really want people, especially the vast bulk of people in the middle, to save more for their old age—we all know the Government's target for the ratio of public to private pension provision to swing from 60:40 to 40:60–tax rates in retirement are material.
      I repeat the essential point, but I also ask the Paymaster General whether the Government have focused on the fact that many in retirement who are not enjoying large pensions will not benefit from the much-boasted, double-inflation increases in age-related allowances. Was that the Government's intention, or is it an oversight? Why did the Government not consider increasing the ceilings at which the age-related personal allowances are withdrawn?
      Mr. Edward Davey: In part, I want to support what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) just said. Many of his points were valid, particularly his point about the need—he did not say it in these words, but it was the implication—to top-slice relief for people who cash in insurance bonds, as they often exceed the age-related allowances and are hit unfairly. I very much agree with him in that respect.
      I want to focus on age-related allowances as they affect married couples. There is room for a very modest measure to be introduced in Committee or in next year's Budget—this is an early Budget representation for next year—to sort out the allowances for married elderly people to make them less complicated. Currently, there is a difference in the married couples allowance for people aged 65 as opposed to those aged 75. It is a small difference, but it seems odd that there should be two different allowances for those two different groups of pensioners. It creates an unnecessary complication, and, by spending tiny amounts of money, the Government could level up the age 65-to-75 allowance to the higher rate for those aged 75 and over. That would achieve simplification and benefit some pensioners in a small way. I put that down as a marker, as the Government could consider such a proposal in the Standing Committee or in next year's Budget.
      The clause itself is welcome. The fact that the age-related allowance is being increased over and above indexation is welcome, just as the failure to index the personal allowance for those under 65 was not welcome. I should have thought that the clause would receive support on both sides of the Committee, but there are several other smaller measures, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and I have tried to suggest, that the Government could consider to push in the same direction as the clause.
      Dawn Primarolo: The clause increases the pensioner allowances for those who are 65 and over. It complements our policy of tackling pensioner poverty and rewarding those pensioners on modest incomes who have saved a little for their retirement. From April, the poorest
      230
      households, who are on the minimum income guarantee, are at least £20 a week better off—over £1,000 a year in real terms—compared with 1997. We will increase, throughout this Parliament, the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, which means that the poorest pensioners will share in rising prosperity thanks to the Government's successful handling of the economy.
      In addition, from October 2003 the pension credit will replace the minimum income guarantee and provide pensioners with a guaranteed minimum income of at least £100 a week for single pensioners and £154 for couples. It will reward those whose second pensions, savings or earnings give them income of up to about £135 a week for single pensioners or £200 for couples. We have also increased the basic state pension beyond the rate of inflation. For a single pensioner, the rise will be £3 a week this April and that is on top of £5 increase last April. In 2003, the full basic state pension will increase by at least £100 for single pensioners, and in the future it will always increase by at least 2.5 per cent.
      As I have already said, we are setting the winter fuel allowance payment at £200 for the rest of this Parliament. There is also additional help for households with someone who is aged over 75. They will continue to receive free television licences.
      On taxation, in the last Parliament we increased pensioner allowances beyond inflation, very much recognising the point that was made in earlier debates about pensioners being on fixed incomes and facing other pressures. We then created and extended the 10p tax band. However, we wanted to do more for those pensioners who pay tax. In 2003–04, we will increase the pensioner allowance to £6,610 for someone aged 65 to 74 and by another £240 over indexation for those who are over 75. That will come to £6,740 on current forecasts.
      The higher allowances will benefit 1.4 million pensioners and will take about 170,000 of them out of tax altogether. The basic rate pensioner taxpayer will gain up to £85 per year and we will subsequently increase the allowances at least in line with earnings for the rest of this Part. As one would expect, that is very much in line with our manifesto commitments.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised an issue that he has raised powerfully in the House on several occasions. He referred to the importance of continuing to look critically at the way in which the tax system affects pensioners and of considering every opportunity, as we have done, to remove pensioners from the tax system whenever that is possible. When the tax system impinges on their income, we should continue that quest. I am therefore happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's representations for next year's Budget in the spirit in which they were offered. In particular, he identified the issue of the married couples allowance, which was protected for those over 65 when the Government removed it in a previous Budget as we prepared the way for the tax credits.
      Adam Price: I would like clarification. If I understand it correctly, both pensioner age groups—the 65-to-74 cohort and those aged 75-plus—have been over-indexed, but they have been dealt with slightly differently by the Bill. A precise figure is stated for the 65-to-74 group, but indexation-plus applies to the other group. Will the Paymaster General explain the reason for that?
      9pm
      Dawn Primarolo: For the over-75s, there is indexation plus an extra £240. That is in recognition of the particular pressures and expenditures that older pensioners face, in the same way that we provided free television licences for people aged 65 and over. We have debated that problem many times. Although the Committee is only considering the taxation system, the Government's reforms to support pensioners attempt to tackle the wider problems that they experience. In particular, we hope to increase the income of those on the lowest incomes as rapidly as possible and ensure that the money that we spend has a greater impact on the income of pensioners on lower pensions.
      For the over-75s, indexation occurs in September. We promised to ensure that no pensioner aged 65 or over would pay tax on their income if it is less than £127 a week. We are setting the monetary amount to ensure that we deliver on that promise. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the connection between statements that were made in the House, the September date for indexation and the announcements in the pre-Budget report. We are fulfilling the pledges made in the House.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned the tapering away from the upper limit of the benefit of the allowances. No elderly person pays more tax than a younger person would with exactly the same income. In fact, the reverse is true. Retired people who are aged 65 and over tend to pay less tax on the same income as someone who is in work, which relates to the protection of fixed income.
      The hon. Gentleman knows that the purpose of the age-related allowance is to give extra help to those aged 65 and over who rely on relatively modest incomes. That is why the allowances are given in full only to those whose income does not exceed a certain limit. The limit for 2002–03 is £17,900. Abolishing that limit would cost the Government £420 million and would benefit only the very wealthiest 10 per cent. of pensioners. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but this Government and preceding Governments have thought it right to retain the income limit and to concentrate the extra benefits of the allowances on elderly people with modest incomes.
      The income limit is indexed for 2003–04. The Government have tried to protect the position, but I will not conceal the fact that that type of expenditure on the wealthiest 10 per cent. of pensioners is not justified in our opinion.
      Mr. Flight: I did not suggest that the tapering away should be abolished. My concern relates to the way in which it operates. Many pensioners who are on below average incomes will not benefit from the increase in the older person's personal allowance. I am glad to hear that the limit at which the tapering away applies will be indexed because I confess that I was not entirely clear that that was the case. I hope that the Minister is correct. At the very least, it seems that indexation is fundamental. I was focusing on those with incomes below the average because the costs of living of the elderly tend to have a higher inflation rate than those of the mean citizen.
      Dawn Primarolo: All pensioners on incomes of up to £22,000 will benefit from this measure, and that amount is higher than the median earnings of a single person,
      232
      which are £21,400, so the position is protected and the situation is not as acute as the hon. Gentleman might imagine for those on modest incomes. The changes that he suggests would benefit only the wealthiest 10 per cent., and the cost is not justified, given their substantial incomes compared with those of people who earn less and still contribute.
      That point addresses one made earlier by the Liberal Democrats. They said that we are letting the wealthiest pensioners off the hook. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton looks at how indexation operates, he will see that that is not quite the case.
      Mr. Davey rose—
      Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, and then I want to conclude my remarks.
      Mr. Davey: Moving on from the point that the Paymaster General has been debating with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), will she provide clarification? The clause sets the personal allowance for those aged 65 and 74 at £6,610. I have been looking through the notes on clauses to find what the allowance would have been set at if the clause had not been included in the Bill—in other words, under pure indexation—and I could not find the amount. Will the Paymaster General tell the Committee what that figure is? It is clearly a lower amount, because on page 14 of the Red Book the cost of over-indexation of age-related allowances for those aged between 65 and 74 is set at £55 million for 2003£04, but I cannot find the exact figure.
      I have a second question. We are being told in the clause the personal allowance for those aged 75 and over will be determined by the indexed amount plus £240, but in table 1.2 in the Red Book I cannot see any figure for the cost of that policy for the over-75s. Does the Paymaster General have a figure for that?
      Dawn Primarolo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give him those figures right now. I do not have them at my fingertips. He knows that I am not feeling quite on form this evening, so if he will forgive me I will make sure that I respond later to those points. If he preferred to ask for those figures in a parliamentary question, I could answer him that way, or I could write to him. I shall certainly look into the matter. The Government have made commitments to protect income at a certain level, and we are using different methods to achieve that. There is no intention to use smoke and mirrors.
      The final point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs concerned life assurance policies and any gain from them. We take the view that a gain on such a policy is income like any other income, and the age-related limit applies. The gain comes into the income that will be taken into account when calculating tax over the limit. That is how we are proceeding. Committee members must strike a reasonable balance. We must ensure that pensioners on modest fixed incomes are protected in the best way possible without creating exceptional rules that seem to imply that once someone is over 65 all the tax system's rules on gains on income do not apply. There is no reason to move away from that argument.

      233
      The proposals in the clause have been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by pensioners. I shall look carefully at points made by hon. Members to ensure that our aim is delivered and consider whether anything further needs to be scrutinised. I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Flight: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but the Paymaster General did not quite understand my argument. I was not proposing that there should be an abolition; I was merely asking her to look at the level at which age allowance restrictions are removed. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the £17,900 limit has not gone up, which is a fundamental issue. I understand that average earnings are about £23,100; all age-related allowance is lost at £21,980, which is £1,000 or so below average earnings. I was focusing not on better-off pensioners, but on the rump of people in the middle and suggesting, if I am right about the figures, that they are getting a slightly raw deal.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 87

      EXTENSION OF POWER TO GIVE EFFECT TO DOUBLE TAXATION ARRANGEMENTS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Flight: Clause 87 is a technical measure, designed to provide a useful power for Britain to enter into tax treaties with non-recognised territories. Taiwan has been cited as the jurisdiction where it will be most useful. The enabling provision on tax treaties is section 788 of the Taxes Act 1988, which is one of the measures being addressed or tinkered with. Has the opportunity been taken to make quite sure that it gives proper authority to all aspects of existing treaties as well as the proposed change?
      In the past, the Inland Revenue has acknowledged that section 788 has shortcomings. In practice, there may not be a serious problem, but in principle it is less than desirable to enter into treaties without adequate statutory authority in the United Kingdom. I seek confirmation that, in looking at changes to section 788, the Government are satisfied that they have addressed the Revenue's concerns about its shortcomings.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will forgive me. She has always been very courteous to me, but she knows from the exchanges that we had in the Treasury Committee, before I was chucked off it, that I have the gravest suspicion about everything that she does.
      I have a simple question about the reason for changing the words
      "made with the government of any territory"
      to
      "made in relation to any territory".
      234
      The next clause, which of course we cannot discuss now, contains regulations that provide for different cases with respect to different territories. The clause states:
      "The territories to which this section applies as respects an accounting period…are those specified as such in regulations".
      9.15 pm
      I am horrified because I gain the impression that the Government are asking for the power to apply different rules to different territories. There is no definition of how the territories will be selected, and there is no definition of what rules will apply. The Minister is aware that I am extremely concerned, for example, about what the Government are doing in relation to the Channel Islands. The policy that they seem to be adopting towards one of the Channel Islands seems to differ from the policy that they are adopting towards the others.
      What worries me in particular is the fact that the Government are asking for blanket powers to bring in regulations that will apply to any place that they want, without ensuring that the same rules are applied to all territories. That strikes me as very worrying and not in the traditions of the House—
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Roger Gale): Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he will find that he is speaking to clause 88, not to the clause currently under discussion.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I would not think of taking up the time of the Committee. I was giving an example to illustrate my simple question about the reason for substituting the words
      "made in relation to any territory"
      in clause 87 for the words
      "made with the government of any territory".
      I shall, of course, say a few words on clause 88 if I have the delightful opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Gale, but I should like to know why the words are to be substituted and what the aim is.
      Dawn Primarolo: The clause amends the legislation that enables double taxation agreements to be implemented. In particular, it removes the existing requirement that the agreement is "made with the government" of the other territory. The other territory is the country—the jurisdiction.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked whether we were confident that the proposed wording was correct. I am confidently advised that the wording is correct, but the hon. Gentleman is right: if it were not correct, we would not have the authority to enter into a double taxation treaty, for which the clause provides. I assume that the wording is right, because I have been advised that it is right.
      The purpose of the change is to enable legal effect to be given to a double taxation agreement in relation to the territory of Taiwan. The agreement must be made between two representative offices-the British trade and cultural office in Taipei, and the Taipei representative office in London. It was formally signed in London by the heads of those offices on 8 April 2002. The agreement will be laid for consideration by the House at the earliest convenient opportunity after the passing of the Bill.

      235
      The reason that we need to change the wording is specifically to enable us to have an agreement with Taiwan. Other countries have taken similar powers in order to do that. Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands have all implemented double taxation agreements with Taiwan, which were made between their representative offices and the Taiwan representative office in each country. The change is necessary because Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. It is one of our most important trading partners in Asia, and a double taxation agreement will provide considerable benefits to British companies trading in Taiwan, and will also serve to encourage Taiwanese investment in the United Kingdom. It is necessary to make changes in order to retain the internationally recognised definition of "the Government", and to reach an agreement with the representatives of Taiwan.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Paymaster General suggesting that Taiwan has no Government? My understanding is that it has a democratically elected Government, while the People's Republic of China does not. Why on earth is the Paymaster General removing the word "government"? Is she making a concession to the People's Republic of China and, if so, what is the purpose of that concession? What is wrong with the existing words, given that Taiwan has a splendid Government, who are democratically elected and respected throughout the civilised world?
      Dawn Primarolo: I have already answered that question. To my knowledge, Taiwan is not recognised by any Government. Other Governments have double taxation treaties for precisely the reasons I have given. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the rest of the world is wrong in terms of its diplomatic relations with that part of the world, he is entirely entitled to hold that view; but the international agreements require the reference to a Government to be changed to a reference to a representative office, so that the balance of agreements already in existence can be maintained and an agreement with Taiwan can be secured.
      That is all that the clause does. It is what many other countries have done. It is a welcome arrangement, which adds to the double taxation agreements that this country already has—more than 100—thus facilitating international trade and, in particular, the operation of our companies in countries where we have such agreements.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 88

      CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES: TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIONS FROM S.748 EXEMPTIONS
      Mr. Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 63, line 14, at end insert—
      '(6) A period of 6 months' notice shall be given prior to the laying of a statutory instrument, as provided for in subsection (5) above.'
      This is essentially a probing amendment. It is intended to establish whether the Government are willing to consider relaxing the measures in clause 88. Conservative Members are extremely uncomfortable with the clause
      236
      and its background. For reasons connected with the national interest, we are particularly unhappy about the fact that it makes Britain a marginally less attractive place for a multinational company to have its headquarters. It introduces a degree of uncertainty to the international structure of such companies.
      Clause 88 gives the Treasury an arbitrary power to designate territories where CFC exemptions for UK-based groups will be removed. Although I duly note that an affirmative resolution of the House is required, self-evidently the present Government have a majority that will make that little more than a formality.
      Let me say something about the background to the clause. I do not know why, but there was some misreporting of it in the press. It was said that the clause related to a disagreement—shall I say?—between the Paymaster General and Jersey on the savings directive, which threatened the deal allowing it to be an alternative to a common European Union withholding tax. Whether there is a disagreement is debateable, but the matter relates to the Primarolo report on EU unfair tax competition and not to the savings directive.
      The Committee may remember that the Primarolo report identified in EU member states, various British dependencies and elsewhere, what it considered instances of unfair tax competition that resulted, among other things, in particular locations getting business because of specific tax incentives. At the outset, EU members considered applying their code and principles to other key parts of the world—the United States and Switzerland in particular—on the basis of the sensible argument that not bringing them in would merely drive capital away from the EU and places like the British dependencies. As I understand it, that developed slightly later into an attempt by EU member states to get a commitment that the same measures would be introduced in British dependent territories, even though they are not members of the EU. In relation to key third territories, the concept was to try to promote the adoption of equivalent measures. I think that there was a slight change from the original intentions in that regard.
      As I understood it£I remember reading the report£the main offender was the Netherlands, which I think had 66 cases of allegedly unfair tax practices, while the British dependent territories of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man had relatively few such cases. I recollect that the report stated that the UK would do its best to persuade its dependent territories to come into line with what was being introduced in the EU, but also made it clear the UK had limited constitutional powers and could do its best only within that framework.
      I understand that a week or so before the Budget announcement—I think on 10 April—a conversation occurred between the Paymaster General and the chairman of the Jersey policy resources committee, who is the senior politician in Jersey. In essence, the Paymaster General told that gentleman that if Jersey did not sign up within a week to the EU code of conduct on unfair tax competition, the UK would introduce options for putting economic pressures on Jersey to do so.
      Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is merely repeating what has been alleged in the press or whether he has been told by the senator concerned that that was the content of our conversation?

      237
      He needs to be clear on the matter, because if he wants to pursue that route, there will be a sharp dispute between us about what was said and when. If he is repeating what was reported in the press, perhaps he could say so.
      Mr. Flight: I thank the Paymaster General for those comments. In fact, I recollect press reports that had nothing to do with the matter, but were all about the savings directive. The document that I have is the EU tax package statement by the gentleman in question to the Senate in Jersey, and I shall refer to some points in that statement.
      9.30 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to read from the document selectively? The senator whose statement to the Jersey Parliament the hon. Gentleman is talking about referred to the fact that discussions went on between Jersey and the United Kingdom for some two years.
      Mr. Flight: I am aware of that, and I will be referring to those discussions, which went on for some time. I am sure that the Paymaster General may be able to elucidate a little further what those discussions were about. In commonsense language, as I understand the situation, there were discussions with the various dependent territories, particularly with regard to exempt companies; the Jersey authorities were less co-operative than the Guernsey and Isle of Man authorities and sought to negotiate terms, because the administration of companies forms a larger proportion of the Jersey gross domestic product than it does elsewhere.
      Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain whether his speech is intended to defend the UK interest, or Jersey's interests.
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Before my hon. Friend responds to that intervention, will he point out that Jersey has no representative in the House of Commons to speak for it?
      Mr. Flight: I will come to the UK interest, but it is important to raise the matter, partly for the reason that my hon. Friend has mentioned and partly because in some senses the British dependencies are part of British interests. If, as a result of clause 88, we end up damaging our own self-interest, that will not be particularly sensible. [Interruption.] May I continue? It is healthy that this matter should be out in the open, particularly where, for some reason, what appeared in the press, particularly the Financial Times, was far from what the matter was all about.
      The Paymaster General's discussions with Jersey were also about what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been concerned with in the territories. It is interesting to note that roughly a year ago the United States Government changed policy and broadly made the point to the OECD that it was not entirely proper to over-interfere in the internal tax affairs of sovereign states. I would be interested to know whether
      238
      the United States change of policy was acknowledged by the Government here, and what the opinions about that were.
      To deal with the Jersey matter, my practical point is that it is in the UK's interest, no matter how difficult it may be, to resolve British policy objectives directly with Jersey. It is unfortunate that the resulting power that the Paymaster General has introduced in clause 88 does not relate specifically to the Government's disagreement with Jersey. It has a much wider application.
      I realise that the Paymaster General may seek to talk about precedent, but as I said at the outset, under clause 88, a UK-based multinational will face the arbitrary possibility that the exemption rules applying to controlled foreign companies, on which basis it may have structured itself, could suddenly change if the Government choose to use the powers in clause 88. As a result, its CFC exemptions would be suspended.
      The amendment would provide a cooling-off period, and introduce the concept of giving six months' notice of an intention to bring forward such legislation. One hopes that that would force agreement between the UK and the relevant dependent territory, and it would also enable UK-based multinational companies to examine their global structure and to change it, having been given notice of such legislation by the UK Government.
      I finish by returning to the Jersey issue, and Jersey's response—as I understand it—to the Paymaster General, following the famous telephone conversation in which Jersey was required to commit. The key clause states:
      "We have said clearly to the Treasury that, subject to safeguarding our vital economic interests and to a clear level playing field, we shall take the Code of Conduct principles into account in our review of fiscal strategy and also examine whether we can address the Directive by adopting measures that are the same as, or equivalent to, those set out in it. We have emphasised that in any event we recognise the wish of EU Member States to limit as far as possible any circumvention of the Directive, if or when it comes into force, and that accordingly we shall not allow Jersey to be a place outside the EU where EU residents could avoid paying their due taxes. As my letter to the Minister makes clear, we want to reach an agreement with the UK on the Tax Package and we are ready and willing to enter into constructive discussions to that effect. The progress of our fiscal strategy review makes that now timely."
      It would be in the UK's and London's interests if the UK and Jersey could reach an agreement here. It is unfortunate that the Government have resorted to the instrument constituted by clause 88, which has a wider application than merely the specific discussions with Jersey.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I rise so that we can return the debate to amendment No. 26. I have some sympathy with it, but its implications have not been explored in recent moments.
      The explanatory notes and Budget press notices do not offer sufficient explanation of, or justification for, clause 88, so the Government need to offer some. The Committee needs to be aware that it would empower the Treasury to make regulations that would affect companies' commercial

      239
      decisions overnight. One assumes that such regulations would not be retrospective, and it would help if the Paymaster General could confirm that.
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Mr. Davey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, provided that he is not going to talk about Jersey.
      Mr. Flight: I did make the point that the measures would in effect be retrospective. If a group has a structure or its CFCs in a certain jurisdiction, but it is suddenly decreed that CFC exemptions are not valid there, that is effectively retrospective.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is redefining the term "retrospective" with that argument. It is a concern, but not in the way that he suggests. My concern is that the clause gives the Government the opportunity to produce an instrument to change the rules on CFCs at any stage during the financial year. Governments in the past have been able to do so every year in the Budget and the Finance Bill. Every year, the Government get their sticky fingers on the tax statutes and change the law. All companies and individuals know that the tax regime may change in the next financial year. That degree of instability is built into the system and we cannot get around that unless we stop having annual Finance Bills. That might be a good idea, but I would be ruled out of order for pursuing it. However, the clause would build in extra instability over and above the annual Finance Bill. That is the concern, and the Government have yet to make the case that the power is necessary between annual Finance Bills.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will reconsider this important issue. This clause does not mention the Channel Islands, just as the previous clause did not mention Taiwan. I had the pleasure of having breakfast in Portcullis House last week with senators from Jersey who explained their concern about the provision. I should point out that I paid the bill, so there is no question of anything unusual.
      The senators had several concerns. The Minister will be aware that it has been widely reported—the senators who spoke to me confirmed it—that those involved had been told to agree to the code of conduct, lest economic sanctions be levied against them. I am sure that the Government will deny that shameful behaviour. However, the clause contains unusual wording that would horrify Members, especially Labour Members who claim to believe in democracy, if they read it. Clause 88 states that regulations may be introduced that
      "may make different provision … with respect to different territories".
      In other words, there might be one rule for Jersey and another for a different country. That should worry us all.
      The regulations may also
      "contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Treasury may think fit."
      So we would be giving the Government a blank cheque to introduce whatever measures they think fit, subject to the approval of regulations. They could bring in different rules for different countries or places.
      240
      I hope that the Minister will accept that the Channel Islands have some of the highest standards of financial operation to be found anywhere in the world. We had a recent report on money laundering in which the Channel Islands were not even mentioned as being suspected of involvement. The Channel Islands are also the second major source of capital for London finances. Surely the Government should be concerned to try to preserve that.
      As the Minister is well aware, the code of conduct that she initiated in the EU, among all the nonsensical talk about a withholding tax—it cannot happen unless Britain agrees to it—has meant that we are stuck with forcing the Channel Islands to do something that they do not want to do. It will be much against their financial interests. If the Minister doubts that, she should speak, as I have, to senators from Jersey who are very concerned, worried and alarmed. The Minister may argue that the people of Guernsey are not suffering, but she will probably know that they have a very different sort of business from that carried on in Jersey.
      9.45 pm
      Why is the Minister introducing this measure? Why does she want the power to bring in different regulations to apply to different countries? The Minister may say that the circumstances are different, but surely a law should be applied fairly and squarely. Many of us who care about Britain and the high standards that have been maintained here are worried that the Channel Islands will be undermined by the code of conduct that has been introduced. The Minister may remember that she said at the time that the code was not available, but I was able to get hold of a copy. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) is present, and he will recall that I obtained a copy simply by telephoning Brussels for one.
      Will the Minister explain why the Government want the power to bring in regulations that will apply to different places in different ways? The Channel Islands do not belong to the EU, and have always had the right to make their own decisions on taxes. Can the Minister assure the Committee that there is no question that the Channel Islands will be subject to sanctions, and that no pressure will be applied, under the clause, to force them to do something that they do not want to do and that they do not consider in their interests?
      Finally, Britain's interest in the EU obliges us all to do many things that we do not want to do. The Minister may remember that we spoke about the Bank of England being forced to sell gold, but the price today is $309 per ounce. The price at which we sold means that Britain has lost hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers either seem uninterested, or they say that there is nothing to be done.
      I know that it would be out of order to go beyond the clause. However, the powers in the clause have never appeared in legislation before. They would allow provisions to be applied differently in different areas. We have treated the Channel Islands in a shameful manner that is against the interests of Britain and the world. The provision is also against the interests of those who believe in maintaining high standards of financial conduct in the financial world.
      Dawn Primarolo: I shall begin by explaining the provisions of clause 88. The clause provides for a reserve

      241
      power to make regulations specifying overseas jurisdictions in which controlled foreign companies would automatically fall within the charge to tax made by the controlled foreign company rules.
      The aim of the measure is to protect the UK's economic interests and tax base against harmful tax practices where they continue to be prevalent. It reflects the Government's determination to promote fair tax competition and to take effective action where jurisdictions do not remove the harmful features of their tax regimes. It will not be used where appropriate action is being taken by jurisdictions to remove harmful tax practices.
      I shall explain the parliamentary process involved and the precedents; finally, I shall explain what will happen next.
      Regulations specifying a jurisdiction would require the express consent of Parliament. The regulation-making power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so no jurisdiction can be designated unless and until the House votes through regulations to that effect; only then would the tax rules for controlled foreign companies be affected.
      The controlled foreign companies rules are designed to stop UK companies reducing their UK tax liabilities by diverting profits to subsidiaries situated in low-tax regimes. The rules work, broadly, by charging UK parent companies of controlled foreign companies on an amount equal to the profits that would otherwise avoid tax.
      At present, there are a number of specific exemptions from these rules that exclude from their effects the vast majority of overseas subsidiaries of UK companies. The measure would give the reserve power to make regulations to exclude from these exemptions companies that carry on business in the designated jurisdiction and would, in effect, bring them into UK tax charge.
      We have introduced this measure because, although much progress has been made towards eliminating harmful tax practices, we must be able to take effective action against jurisdictions that do not remove them in order to afford more protection for the United Kingdom tax base. Those are the obligations of Ministers and, I should have thought, of all Members.
      It is the responsibility of Governments to protect their tax base, and by taking this action we signal that we are serious about our desire to see the United Kingdom's interests protected. The Government strongly support international initiatives aimed at curbing harmful and anti-competitive tax practices. In particular, that means encouraging our dependent territories to co-operate fully with the two key initiatives—the code of conduct and the draft directive on taxation of savings, which are contained in the European tax package—that are so crucial to the City of London.
      The United Kingdom has committed itself to promoting the principles in the code. We believe that our dependent territories should match up to the highest international standards and be part of international efforts to ensure fair tax competition. As major offshore financial centres, they depend on the health of European economies.
      We will all benefit if there is strong and healthy competition—but only if the competition is fair and not simply predatory. This measure provides the Government
      242
      with a reserve power to take considered action, with the full authority of Parliament, when such action is necessary to protect the tax base and the United Kingdom's economic interests.
      Denzil Davies: I think that we all understand the purpose behind the legislation. Is it not a legitimate concern that, as I understand it, under the reserve powers the tax rates of companies can be increased in the middle of a financial year by secondary legislation?
      Dawn Primarolo: If such a regulation were sought from the House, it would become effective at the company's next accounting period, whether it was in January or April. It is not retrospective.
      The Government hope that, by negotiation, agreement will be achieved. However, there have been a number of occasions in the past when the United Kingdom has taken defensive measures against other jurisdictions to defend its economic interests and tax base. For example, the United Kingdom terminated two double tax treaties, with the British Virgin Islands in 1971 and the Dutch Antilles in 1988. Both treaties were terminated to defend United Kingdom interests.
      In 1985, with the full support of the then Opposition, the Conservative Government secured provisional powers—the same type of reserve powers as these—to act against unitary taxation, specifically directed at California. Section 812 of the Taxes Act 1988 allows the Treasury to make an order prescribing a unitary state, and is still on the statute book.
      There are strong political, economic and historic ties between the dependent territories and the United Kingdom. In many cases, that relationship contributes strongly to their undoubted success as offshore financial centres. However, mutual responsibility cuts both ways, and it would be highly unrealistic and irresponsible to expect us to allow them to enjoy the benefits without contributing to the way forward.
      On the comments that have been made about Jersey, let me give hon. Members one example. There are about 19.000 exempt companies in Jersey. They pay a charge of £600—that is all—which means that they have to pay no tax at all on their income on profits arising outside Jersey. Moreover, at the moment they are not taxed anywhere else. It does not seem unreasonable that we should, as part of the international debate about tracking terrorist finance, dealing with money laundering, addressing fair tax competition and eradicating niche regimes, expect to advance this argument with our dependent territories, and they are engaging with us on that.
      The UK dependent territories have the capacity and expertise to prosper without recourse to internationally damaging tax practices, and their reputations and long-term viability will be enhanced by their being part of these international initiatives. Guernsey's advisory and finance committee president, Laurie Morgan, was reported only two weeks ago as saying—as have those in other dependent territories—that he was confident that the industry would be able to adapt to any changes implemented as a result of adopting international standards. No dependent territory is being asked to do anything that the United Kingdom would not do. No dependent territory is being asked to move first or to change its system without others in the international

      243
      framework doing the same. No dependent territory is being asked to do anything apart from engaging on a level playing field, helping us to take forward initiatives whereby all of us will prosper.
      The amendment would put back by six months the best interests of the United Kingdom economically and in defending its tax base. The provisions in the reserve power provide, first, for the Government to introduce regulations and, secondly, for that to be debated in the House: only then will the matter be acted on. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that no retrospection is involved. If the regulations were required—I hope that they will not be, but the UK must be strong in signalling its intention to defend itself—the earliest date on which they could be made is that of the passing of the Bill. If regulations become necessary, they will specify exactly what they are doing, and no power within them can be retrospective. The UK is defending its economic interests and its tax base, sending a clear message to all jurisdictions about how we will conduct ourselves in the international field.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister mentioned money laundering as one of the reasons for the regulations. Is she aware that the recent report on upholding money laundering issues throughout the world specifically excluded the Channel Islands altogether?
      Dawn Primarolo: I used money laundering as one example of international practices that were improving. The regulations will tackle harmful tax competition and predatory tax regimes that seek to undermine legitimate fair tax competition; they have nothing to do with money laundering.
      I call on every Member to vote for the best economic interests of the United Kingdom, to defend its tax base, to support the clause and to reject the amendment because it would deny us those opportunities—[Interruption.]
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that a debate is under way.
      Mr. Flight: As I pointed out, the amendment was, in essence, a probing one. The Government have taken excessive powers, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Dan Norris.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The parliamentary day is drawing to a close and, yet again—unless you are able to tell us to the contrary—we have had no indication from
      244
      the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he wishes to come to the House, to make an apology, to make a statement or, indeed, to offer his resignation. Can you give us any information, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether you have received an approach from the Secretary of State—even at this late hour—to honour the House with his presence, to purge the contempt for the House that he has shown hitherto, and to allow the House to question him and hold him to account, as is our duty?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must inform the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that I have not received any communication from the Secretary of State or anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and I am sure that he is well aware of a very well-tried method of obtaining information—he may wish to pursue it at the earliest opportunity.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify this point? Is it not usual, when the shadow Leader of the House rises to make a very serious point of order, for the Leader of the House to be present to listen to it? The right hon. Gentleman, who is the custodian of the traditions of the House, could at least communicate to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how angry the House is about his conduct.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: In the absence of any information being given to the Leader of the House about the point of order, I should not expect him to be present.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A headline on Ceefax tonight stated that the Secretary of State had been in discussions with Mr. Speaker. Can you give the House any information about that?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that I am in no way responsible for whatever appears on Ceefax.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you take this opportunity to reaffirm the guidance given to me and other new Members of the 1997 intake by Speaker Boothroyd that, as Members, we enjoy the privilege of being able to say what we like in the House without suffering the risk of defamation proceedings? Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if a Secretary of State has not only misled the House but has defamed an individual in the way that Mr. Sixsmith was defamed, the individual is entitled to expect a withdrawal in the House and for his name to be cleared?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled on that and given my response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker said earlier in the Session that he was concerned to ensure that announcements would be made to the House and not outside. Therefore, I put it to you that on this occasion

      245
      this is a matter about which the Chair ought to be concerned, for an announcement was made outside the House about the proceedings in the House. Would it not therefore be appropriate for the Chair to make inquiries as to when this might be remedied here, in this Chamber?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have absolutely no doubt that Mr. Speaker, if he is not aware already, will read Hansard tomorrow. I remind all hon. Members that I have already made a suggestion and ruled on this matter. If there are any points of order other than on that subject, I am prepared to take them.
      Mr. Forth: In view of the gravity of this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is apparently unwilling voluntarily to come to the House, may I give notice that Her Majesty's Opposition will tonight table a motion of censure on the Secretary of State?
      Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If a Member of the House accuses another Member, particularly a Minister, of misleading the House, the procedures that you would exercise are very clear, unless the Member immediately withdraws the accusation; so, from the point of view of Members of the House, especially Back Benchers, the procedures are clear. However, if the House is misled by Ministers there seems to be absolutely no redress. The imbalance in our procedures becomes clearer with every event such as this that passes, so I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will discuss this with Mr. Speaker as a matter of urgency.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already suggested to the shadow Leader of the House the route that is available to any Back Bencher, but I will see that the hon. Lady's comments are drawn to the attention of Mr. Speaker.

    PETITION

      Personal Benefits (Long-stay Patients)
      10.7 pm
      Mr. Bob Laxton: I wish to present to the House a petition in the name of 3,769 constituents from the Derby patients council and residents of Derby. It declares
      that the present level of personal benefit allowance for long-stay patients drops to £14.50 per week after 52 weeks in hospital; and that this is grossly inadequate and demeaning for people whose home is a hospital.
      The Petitioners Therefore Request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to immediately double the allowance to £29 per week, and to review the aspect of this benefit system with the aim of ensuring that all long stay patients receive a level of allowance which meets their needs.
      And the Petitioners Remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Asthma
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  10.9 pm
  Mr. James Wray: I should like to draw attention to the seriousness of the incidence of asthma throughout Britain. I have spent a great deal of time trying to get this subject debated in the House; I raised it with the Leader of the House and asked him to give time for a debate, but unfortunately there was other important business to deal with.
  I also raised the issue with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to try to find out some relevant statistics and how much has been spent on research. In a written reply, she said that she did not have those statistics because they were not collected centrally. However, the British Thoracic Society has done a great deal of research on health service expenditure, and it reckons that respiratory disease costs the health service about £2.5 billion.
  I am not saying that I am a great asthma expert, but many men and women, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters have spent a great deal of time worrying about members of their families who have become emergency patients in many hospitals throughout the country because of their asthma.
  This is the National Asthma Campaign's national asthma day in Scotland, and yesterday was national asthma day in England. The campaign is involved in a worthwhile cause, and it is guided by the hands of the chief executive, Liz Brodie, whose son has suffered from asthma for 25 years. I would like to do justice to the campaign's cause. It has reported on many occasions to many other committees and has sent speakers across the country.
  The National Asthma Campaign's report "Sleepless Nights, Anxious Days", which was launched today, analyses the incidence of asthma throughout the United Kingdom. We have to focus on younger children first when we talk about asthma, as 1.5 million children in the United Kingdom alone have the illness. One in five children have been diagnosed with asthma at some point and one in eight have asthmatic symptoms. Nationally, more than 7,000 children visit their GPs every week to be treated for asthma for the first time. The United Kingdom has the highest rate of "severe wheeze" in the world for those aged 13 and 14. Those are very serious statistics.
  A recent World Health Organisation report found that asthma in young children can be more damaging than tuberculosis and the human immune deficiency virus. That finding is extremely serious. Let us not forget that in the past we screened people for tuberculosis in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom because of the number of lives that were lost to that disease. That is why we want the Government to focus on asthma in the United Kingdom and why I would like them to put it at the top of their list of health priorities, as the situation is likely to get worse, not better.
  Triggers for asthma range extremely widely from cigarette smoke and cat fur to vehicle exhaust fumes, and there are many other causes. In such an unpredictable environment, I am sure that everyone would agree that

  247
  children must get the best possible care and support. Although deaths from asthma in childhood are rare, the fact remains that asthma encroaches on the lives of many people and, unless it is manageable, it can cause undue stress and discomfort.
  I want to give an idea of the impact of asthma nationally. Every 16 minutes a child is admitted to hospital because of asthma. Many of those children go through accident and emergency units, which, as I am sure everyone would agree, can be inhospitable places for children. Often, a frightening environment for children is unwittingly created. I would welcome, as would many people, measures to reduce asthma triggers in the environment, including measures to control smoking in public places and cat pollution.
  I tabled an early-day motion on asthma and schools, which more than 100 Members have signed. It raises the important issue of the application of medication and knowledge of the condition in schools. In that early-day motion I reiterate my point that parents who have children with asthma must feel comfortable to leave their children in the hands of teachers and staff at schools. On average, there will be up to four children with asthma in each classroom. In my constituency, approximately 12,000 people have asthma—the majority are children. Too often, teachers do not have the training or knowledge about asthma, and could be wary when administering medication or not know what to do when a child has an attack. One parent told me that
  "the school just didn't want to take the responsibility, they just didn't know what my son needed and he was not allowed to carry his inhaler with him".
  I take such comments very seriously, as children with asthma must be allowed immediate access to their medication. Locking it away in a cupboard somewhere in the school does not necessarily provide easy access. Children in reception and preparation classes may not understand their condition fully. It can be very frightening for young children to experience attacks, and it is important that their supervisors know what to do.
  I tell all those who do not consider asthma a serious condition to imagine what not being able to breathe properly and struggling to take each breath feels like. In that type of situation, young children will panic, and the condition can worsen. Supervisors must provide a calming influence and not panic. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, local education authorities, or school governors in the case of independent schools, are responsible for ensuring that schools have a health and safety policy.
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have been an asthma sufferer since birth—I carry an inhaler about—and I have a daughter who has also had asthma since birth. Does he agree that not only do we need to educate teachers and parents but we must do extensive research into why children suffer from asthma from birth?
  Mr. Wray: The Government have been doing a great deal—they spent in the region of £130 million on Smoking Kills, a lung disease programme, in 1998. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of that issue.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I have been asthmatic all my life. When I was young, I participated
  248
  in several schemes for new treatments such as broncho-dilators. At that time, in the 1960s, sensitivity tests were available that easily identified the substances to which people were allergic, which are among the causes of asthma. My understanding is that those tests are no longer available because they were subsidised by drug companies, and when generic drugs were introduced the companies no longer subsidised the tests. Now people must do a much more difficult blood test to identify allergic substances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be useful if such tests were once again available under the national health service, particularly for young people, to identify easily the substances to which people are allergic so that they can take the obvious preventive action?
  Mr. Wray: One of the recommendations for which the National Asthma Campaign has been fighting is testing. It wants testing to be carried out because it reckons that it will save money for the health service—that £2.5 billion could be put to a better use.
  Another important consideration for the Department for Education and Skills is provided by the Department of Health's 1996 guidelines on supporting pupils with medical needs in schools. The National Asthma Campaign has discovered that almost half of local education authority schools are without an active asthma policy. My early-day motion has called for all local education authorities to have asthma policies. Although we cannot turn teachers into asthma specialists, such policies would at least ensure that they can spot symptoms and provide medication quickly.
  The National Asthma Campaign's school asthma pack has been tried and tested and, what is more, it takes only 10 hours to implement. I would welcome legislation making mandatory the 1996 Department for Education and Employment guidance on support for pupils with medical needs. In March 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pledged to contact all schools and local education authorities to remind them of the guidance issued in 1996. However, to the best of my knowledge, that is yet to take place.
  The report "Sleepless Nights, Anxious Days" does not ask for a massive increase in finance, but offers a pragmatic approach and easy solutions. Asthma is seen as an invisible disease and it is not taken as seriously as some other conditions. One mother told me that, if her child were in a wheelchair, people would be more supportive.
  I must raise an important point about diagnosis. A woman will often take a child who is wheezing and gasping for breath to the GP and the GP will simply say something like, "Oh, he has got asthma", give them an inhaler and pack them off without much explanation. Such practice must stop. GPs must divulge more information about the condition to the parents and to the children to ensure that they know what exactly is involved. I have spoken to a number of my constituents and I am now convinced that, to enable the 1.5 million children with asthma to lead a normal life, their carers and health professionals need to have more ready knowledge and access to information.
  Parents of children with asthma do not ask for any more from public services than any other family with a sick child. Surely, it is reasonable to ask for a minimum

  249
  standard of care, so that those parents can at least be confident of receiving the support that their child needs—whether in general practice, hospital or at school. As agreed minimum standards of health care for people with asthma in the United Kingdom do not exist, the reality for the 1.5 million children with asthma is that the condition is not a priority for the national health service. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell me why the Government are unwilling to establish a national minimum standard or make funding available to improve the health care of people with asthma.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend could respond to the calls for the introduction of a simple lung function or allergy test for asthma that could be carried out from an early age. That would allow for the right prescribed medication and put a halt to anxious parents continually bringing their children to GPs and thus creating more pressure on the health service.
  In conclusion I hope that the national service framework will include asthma; that minimum standards of asthma care will be established in the health service; that resources will be provided to primary care trusts to give priority to asthma; that legislation will be introduced to ensure that all schools implement an asthma policy; and that the Government will carry out more research into asthma in children to find out its causes and to find a way to prevent it.
  10.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on securing this Adjournment debate. I also thank other Members for their contributions. This is an extremely important subject for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people up and down the country.
  I welcome the debate, not least because it gives the Government an opportunity to state clearly our policy on asthma and to point out the wide-ranging work that is going on in research and to try to advise patients of the ways in which they can manage their condition. That work is increasingly successful.
  I recognise how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. Asthma involves generalised airways obstruction that is reversible either spontaneously or by treatment. Its cause is not known and people can become asthmatic at any time. There are two major variants of asthma. Extrinsic allergic asthma can arise from hypersensitivity to allergens. Those can be everyday particles including grass pollen, house dust mite dung and pet fur. That condition often results in wheezing. It affects many people, especially those of a young age. The other type of asthma is known as intrinsic or non-allergic asthma. It often occurs in people in their 20s and 30s.
  Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in the United Kingdom and affects people across a range of age groups. There are no comprehensive data on the number of people with asthma, but it is estimated that it affects up to 3.4 million people in the UK, including 1.5 million children between the ages of two and 15. It is estimated that 4 per cent. of adults and approximately 5 per cent. of children suffer sufficiently severely to require medical intervention.
  250
  About one in seven children have asthma diagnosed at some time and about one in 20 have asthma that requires regular medical supervision. It is clear from those figures that schools need to be aware of asthma—what triggers an attack, how to prevent it and how it can be treated. My hon. Friend made the important point that if young children are not well prepared they can panic, which exacerbates the attack. It is vital to ensure that schools have the tools, the knowledge and the power to help children in those circumstances. That is why the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health jointly issued "A Good Practice Guide", which is about supporting pupils with medical needs.
  Mr. Wray: I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about the 1974 Act. She said that she wrote to all local authorities to encourage them to be prepared. Surely that Act legally binds them to be responsible for ensuring that the children in their schools get the medical treatment that they need.
  Ms Blears: Under health and safety legislation, schools are responsible for providing a safe environment for staff, pupils and anyone who uses the school environment, but they are not legally responsible for administering treatment. It is not possible under that legislation to put a legal duty on members of staff to provide medical treatment. Rather than putting staff in the position of administering medical treatment—we must remember that they are members of the education staff—we have tried to give them enough confidence, skills, equipment and knowledge to help them to help the children.
  The matter is sensitive and it is important to get the balance of duties right. If we attempt to impose medical duties on non-medical staff who do not have the medical qualifications to carry out treatment, we could find ourselves in legal difficulties. I understand that my hon. Friend wants the guidance to be as strong as possible, but we need to take the staff with us on that. We do not want them to think that we are imposing a duty that they cannot fulfil. They need to be active partners in helping children to care for themselves and in ensuring that the facilities are available to them.
  We produced the good practice guide to encourage local education authorities and schools to draw up medical support policies, not just for asthma but for other conditions from which children might suffer. The guide is therefore not asthma-specific. Hon. Members will know about the rare and severe times when children have an allergic reaction to a product which requires the immediate administration of adrenalin products. We want to have a wide-ranging support mechanism to help school staff to help children.
  The guide includes a specific section on asthma. It states:
  "Children with Asthma must have instant access to their reliever inhalers when they need them."
  My hon. Friend made that important point. The guide gives clear advice on the administration of inhalers. It states that pupils who are able to use their inhalers themselves should usually be allowed to carry them on their person. If the child is too young or immature to take personal responsibility for their inhaler, staff should ensure that it is stored in a safe but readily accessible place and is clearly marked with the pupil's name so that they know where they can get it as soon as the first signs of an attack come on.

  251
  The guide says:
  "Inhalers should also be available during physical education and sports activities or school trips."
  It also recommends, as good practice, that children should be encouraged to take responsibility for using their inhaler from the earliest possible age because the safest way to manage their condition is if they are in control.
  The guide stresses the importance of children with asthma being able to participate fully in all aspects of school life, including sport. Too often in the past children with asthma were discouraged from getting involved in physical activity, but it is important that they do as much as they can within the constraints of their condition. Many children can benefit from physical activity, but managing their condition carefully is important. Schools need to be aware that pupils may need to take their inhaler before joining in sporting activities, and they must be careful not to force children with asthma to take part in sport if they feel unwell. Again, we must strike the right balance between encouraging children to have as normal and active a life as they can and being conscious of the restrictions that their condition may impose.
  As well as advising staff what to do if a pupil suffers an asthma attack, the guide promotes the drawing up of individual health care plans for pupils with medical needs, which should include details of the pupil's condition, medication and named members of staff who are able to support them should anything go amiss. The guide recommends that there should be clear procedures, including the reporting of information about any medical conditions that children have.
  I understand that the National Asthma Campaign, which has been tremendously active in this area, produced a resource pack entitled "Danger Zone", which highlighted all these issues. That has been disseminated to all local schools in our healthy schools network, and programme co-ordinators are making good use of those materials. Healthy schools are working in close conjunction with school nurses to ensure that children and their families get the right support.
  Although asthma has become more common in recent years, treatments have improved and the number of deaths has fallen. Since 1988, in England and Wales the number of deaths has fallen by about 25 per cent., but even so, in 2000, 1,272 people died from the condition, so we can see that it is very serious. Most deaths occur in middle-aged people, and there were only 14 deaths among young people aged 19 and under. Clearly, however, each of those deaths is a tragedy for the family, so asthma is extremely important to the Government.
  Management of asthma mainly takes place in primary care settings. Under the chronic disease management programme, GPs are paid and encouraged, in their contracts, to provide organised programmes of care and, at primary care level, proper clinics for patients with asthma. A recently introduced programme will have a significant impact. Hon. Members may already know of the expert patients programme, which is being developed for people with a range of long-term and chronic conditions, including asthma. This is an extensive programme whereby patients themselves are trained in managing their condition and given detailed clinical information about it. After all, it is the patients, who live
  252
  day to day with chronic conditions, who are the real experts on their care. Often they know far more than consultants and doctors will ever know.
  Mr. Salmond: As the Minister knows, when people suffer from allergenic asthma, their allergies can change very quickly indeed. Is there a medical reason why sensitivity tests are no longer available on the NHS, or is it merely a matter of cost? I find it distressing that my young constituents do not have access to a simple test that I had access to in the 1960s, which was invaluable in stopping asthmatic attacks by allowing me to avoid the substances to which I was allergic. Why are not those simple tests available now, whereas they were available 30 years ago?
  Ms Blears: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I was going to come to that. I was not aware that the tests were available in the 1960s, and I certainly do not know why they are no longer available—whether the reason is cost or a technicality. I would have hoped that we could make clinical advances rather than moving in the opposite direction. I do not know whether these were good, clinically effective tests, so I shall explore the clinical basis for withdrawing them. I am happy to look further into the matter, not only for the hon. Gentleman but for the National Asthma Campaign, and I shall also respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston about the history of this matter.
  As I was saying, the expert patients programme will help us to make big strides towards progress. I am delighted that the programme has 26 pilots on a range of conditions up and down the country. The Medway primary care trust has a pilot specifically on asthma. The area has a disproportionately high accident and emergency admission rate for asthma in childhood; far too many children have attacks and are admitted to A and E. Many of those admissions could be avoided through improved self-management by expert patients. The fact that Medway has a pilot on something that particularly affects the community is extremely encouraging. Evaluating the evidence from the pilot to see if the expert patient programme can reduce the crisis in asthma will be extremely interesting and valuable for the NHS.
  John Robertson: What kind of research is going on in respect of children who have asthma before they are even born, and what kind of money are we putting into that?
  Ms Blears: I am happy to say that extensive research is going on. The Medical Research Council is the main body carrying out research on the Government's behalf, but we also work closely with the National Asthma Campaign to look at why asthma is caused in the first place and to investigate links between air pollution, traffic pollution, the environment and asthma. The National Asthma Campaign is funded to the tune of £5 million a year to carry out research on the Government's behalf; it is innovative of the Government to use experts to conduct research in the field via that voluntary organisation. That is a priority for the Government, even though we have not had any breakthroughs on isolating the causes of asthma. Much of our attention has centred on alleviating people's symptoms, but research into causes is equally important and we want to try and achieve a clinical breakthrough.

  253
  Members have asked whether or not asthma would be subject to a national service framework.
  Mr. Wray: Over the years, have Health Secretaries or Education Secretaries ever been in contact with Transport Secretaries? I read an important article in The Independent which said that most asthma cases are caused by exhaust fumes.
  Ms Blears: That is a subject of ongoing dialogue. In 1995, a committee reported on the medical effects of air pollutants. There was little evidence that air pollution causes asthma, although it was accepted that exposure to air pollutants could worsen the symptoms of asthma. Again, the issue is about causes rather than the exacerbation of the disease, but we do not have strong
  254
  evidence. It has been conjectured that modern fuels are more polluting than those used in the past, but there is no hard evidence of a direct causal link. One would expect there to be more asthma in urban communities where there is more traffic than in rural communities but, interestingly, there is no difference between the two; the link is clearly not as established as one might think from anecdotal evidence.
  The national service framework for children will use asthma as an exemplar; it will not investigate specific diseases, but it has chosen to concentrate on asthma as an illustrative example. I reassure Members that right across the board in research—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Royal Navy Sea Harriers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Syms: The focus of today's debate is the Ministry of Defence's decision, announced on 28 February, to axe the Royal Navy Sea Harrier units from the beginning of 2004; service will end by 2006. The decision is of great concern to the Opposition as it affects the Royal Navy and the future of this country's defence. Even the Minister of State for Defence, who was involved in the decision, pointed out:
"There is an associated risk attached to all of this, but it is without question a decision based on the balance of investment. We believe it to be an entirely logical step".—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 660.]
We will point out the flaws in the decision during the debate. I hope that the Minister will not only respond, but reconsider this short-sighted policy.
In 1998, the Government conducted their strategic defence review and decided to restructure the Harrier forces in the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will my hon. Friend comment on two related points? First, although we are discussing a matter of great importance to the defence of the fleet and therefore to the defence of the realm, no Labour Back Bencher is present. Secondly, without intending any disrespect to the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have a considerable amount of time, I have to say that it is disrespectful of the Secretary of State for Defence not to be present in Westminster Hall this morning to discuss such an important matter.
Mr. Syms: I make no comment about the Government: people can make up their own mind about the Government's priorities. However, I draw attention to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is answering the debate for the Opposition. I welcome his contribution, as it proves what importance the Conservative party attaches to the issue.
The 1998 strategic defence review proposed a joint force of the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force. The Opposition were not against that because there is logic in it, but we are concerned that already, only two years later, the Government are changing the shape of the defence forces proposed in the review, and the decision will reduce the flexibility of the Royal Navy. Between 2006 and the introduction into service of the new aircraft carriers between 2012 and 2015, there will be a major gap in air defence of our fleet. The Opposition regard that with great concern. A key lesson of modern defence is that air superiority is vital to our armed services, so it is a serious matter to give up air superiority of our fleet.
70WH
The United Kingdom's Sea Harrier is a capable fighter aircraft. We all remember its vital role in defending the fleet from air attack during the Falklands war. In 1982, the Sea Harrier destroyed 28 of the 100 enemy aircraft destroyed; more importantly, United States Air Force analysts said that it deterred 453 further attacks on the fleet. Without it, that enterprise would not have been successful. In 1996, Commander Richard Dawkins—Commander Air for the Fleet Air Arm—said:
the F/A2 is the best air-defence aircraft in Europe"
It is therefore important to keep the aircraft as part of our armoury to protect our fleet.
Many members of the press have expressed concern about the decision. In March 2002, the much respected Jane's Defence Weekly commented:
"Withdrawal of Sea Harrier FA2, equipped with the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile will … represent a significant diminution of the RN's fleet defence capability. Whereas the FA2 is equipped with the Blue Vixen multi-mode radar, the GR7/GR9 lacks a radar and is only equipped with short range air-to-air weapons for self-defence."
That is a critical point. There has just been a major refit of the FA2s. In 1985, work began on a mid-life update of the Sea Harrier fleet. Finished only in 1996, the programme cost £466 million. We can stretch the life of the aircraft to give our fleet substantial protection.
Why have the Government changed their policy and what are their motives? Is it money? The overall cost of keeping the Sea Harriers would represent good, not bad value for the taxpayer. The Government claim that the move will save £109 million between 2002–03 and 2005–06, but if it impedes the flexibility of naval forces and does not provide protection for carriers, it is a shortsighted economy. The replacement of the Harrier GR7 with the upgraded GR9 means no stand-off weapons capability, as the aircraft will not be equipped with an appropriate gun. The arms it possesses will give it an over-the-target capability, but, as we all know, it is difficult to deliver that payload when the enemy state has an air defence system.
It is important that the fleet has a layered defence. Sea Harriers provide the outer layer, patrolling perhaps 100 nautical miles around the fleet's exterior. Because radar can see down and jet fighters can cover hundreds of square miles, they provide the outer protection. The key to protecting the fleet is to see off any potential threat before it becomes a real threat to our ships, and that involves deterring as well as shooting down. The problem with relying on the type 45 for missile defence is that the moment an aircraft comes within the range of our missiles, we are within the range of its missiles. That puts our fleet in great danger.
We all know that Britain has been involved in several areas of tension, albeit not clear-cut war. Our fleet may be stationed off the coast of a nation over which the west is in dispute. I can readily imagine a rogue state sending jet fighters to threaten our fleet, and presenting our fleet commander with a difficult choice—to take an aircraft out, or allow it to come close enough to launch its missiles, which could result in the loss of a ship. That choice would not arise with Sea Harriers protecting the fleet, because of their great reach.

71WH
I remain deeply concerned about the change. The Government place great emphasis on the type 45, but the fact remains that by 2010 to 2012, we shall have only three type 45s. The missile for which we all have great hopes—the principal anti-air-missile system—will certainly be superior to the Sea Dart, but to provide high-level protection it will have to act at the height of its capability from day one, straight out of the box, and we know that high technology does not always work like that. I am worried that we are giving away an air superiority fighter that would have provided protection for the fleet, and instead relying on missile defence when we may not have sufficient ships or sufficient missiles to make it work for our fleet in areas of significant risk.
The Government have spoken about significant technical difficulties, such as problems with the Harrier and Sea Harrier in hot climates, which can affect the power of the engines, but the Harrier's record shows that it has served all over the world, including the middle east and off Sierra Leone, so I see no reason not to continue its service. Even with a slight diminution of capability, it remains a capable air defence fighter for protecting our fleet. Off the coast of Sierra Leone, the Sea Harrier was used for patrolling and bombing missions on the mainland in preference to the Army version. Its radar enables it to find the ship, which the Army version cannot do.
Incidentally, a hardy aircraft is required to serve in a maritime environment. The Sea Harrier has anticorrosive treatment to enable it to serve in that environment, whereas adapting the proposed GR9 to ensure that it can serve on land and off aircraft carriers might involve quite expensive treatment.
My principal concern is that getting rid of the Sea Harrier will make us heavily reliant on other forces if we were to deploy in the air defence of a British battle group. We would have to rely on US carrier protection, which immediately inhibits what we can do. The French are also a possibility, because they have an aircraft carrier and air superiority forces; perhaps India is, too. Perhaps if we had to sell the aircraft to India, we could do a deal whereby the Indians protect the Royal Navy. The Government's policy decision leads us to all those conclusions.
I am genuinely concerned because the Sea Harrier is a proven aircraft. Admittedly, it is slowly becoming obsolescent, but all military kit becomes obsolescent. There is a substantial difference between keeping an aircraft that is ageing but can perform a role, and getting rid of it entirely and having no aircraft to perform that role. Our fleet needs protection: the added security of an air defence fighter in the form of the Sea Harrier is vital to ensure the maximum flexibility of the armed services.
I hope that the Government will reconsider carefully the arguments being advanced from all quarters, including the Opposition. The policy decision will substantially inhibit the Government's strategic outlook. It will be a sad day in the future when the Royal Navy can deploy a battle group only by agreement with other countries. The Royal Navy has always been the third navy in the world and a blue-water navy that can deploy around the world. I believe that, at least in the
72WH
interim before the future aircraft carriers are introduced, the Navy will not be able to perform the tasks that the Government continually give it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With such demand, brevity will be our friend.
9.42 am
Richard Ottaway: First, let me pick up on the final remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). Once, as the British fleet closed on the American fleet, the Americans signalled to the British fleet, "How's the world's second largest navy?" The Royal Navy replied, "Fine. How's the second best?"
I had the privilege to serve in the Fleet Air Arm in the 1960s. I was a fighter controller, carried on board HMS Eagle and operating out of Royal Naval air station Yeovilton. It was a time of great tension: Russian aircraft would constantly overfly the fleet. We operated primarily in the north Atlantic, off the coast of Norway, and in the Mediterranean. I had the privilege of being on board HMS Eagle when the first vertical take-off aircraft landed. The Kestrel was the forerunner of the Harrier, and it became obvious to those of us involved in defence of the fleet that it was an integral part of Britain's defence system. I was also involved in the trials of the Phantom, which was the backbone of the Fleet Air Arm throughout the 1970s and 1980s. HMS Eagle carried a fleet of Sea Vixens of 899 Squadron, which were the backbone of the air defence capability of the Fleet Air Arm. Those aircraft were flown in combat air patrols over the fleet, in a manner that was described admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, in an air defence capacity.
It is unthinkable that British amphibious forces could be deployed in a modern theatre without air cover—it is an essential ingredient of modern warfare. I can understand how the problem has arisen. The new carriers are predicted to come into service in 2012, but I guess that it will be 2015 or even later. There will potentially be an eight, nine or 10-year gap in the fleet.
The FA2 is a fantastic aircraft: it carries a tremendous weapons system and good radar. One difficulty is that it is getting old; another is that it is designed to operate in the north Atlantic, not in hot weather conditions such as the Indian ocean and the Gulf. It is unable to land if it is still carrying a heavy load of unused missiles, and the only alternative is to dump the missiles, which is a bit like dumping a Rolls-Royce every time the aircraft comes in to land. It differs from the GR7, which is bigger, lighter and made of more modern fibres than the heavy FA2. More recently, the FA2 has effectively ridden as shotgun for GR7 bombers, for example in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The solution is to upgrade the FA2 and fit a modern engine, but the Government have chosen not to do so. I assume that the reasons for that are budgetary, but there are only 17 FA2s: is it really worth sacrificing the essential air defence cover of our amphibious forces because there is a lack of cash to upgrade the engines of 17 aircraft? It is a big risk. and the Government are seriously exposing themselves with the decision.

73WH
The second world war was won as a result of air superiority, and HMS Sheffield was lost due to a lack of air superiority. In the Gulf war, the position was never tested, but I am sure that the Americans would not have gone to the Gulf had they not had air defence cover.
Mr. Francois: There is an old naval saying about spoiling a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Is this decision not a modern variant?
Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. It is such a bad decision for a modest budgetary sum, which is why it baffles me.
The Government say that the answer is to upgrade the missile defence system and have spoken about the introduction of the type 45s and new PAAMS air defence system. However, the world is an uncertain place. Who would have thought 12 months ago that the Marines would be deployed in Afghanistan today? We have no idea where future threats will come from. We are highly vulnerable in many theatres, and the Government's decision will put at risk the lives of many men and women who serve the interests of this country.
Equally seriously, the Minister will be putting at risk major warships at the centre of our amphibious fleet. The potential to lose a ship is dramatically increased in the event of a missile attack on the fleet, and the result would be catastrophic. The Exocet that sunk HMS Sheffield is now out of date, but just as British and European technology has advanced, so too has other technology. Missiles now have all the capability in the world.
I have three questions. First, how good does the Minister think PAAMS, which is, unfortunately, a French system, will be on the type 45, and how much cover will it give to our amphibious forces? Secondly, what are his proposals for airborne early warning radar cover of the fleet? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to fill the gap I have mentioned?
If there are no clear answers, the consequences will be profound. If the fleet is lost as a result, I would not like to be in the Minister's shoes when he faces the House to explain the decision. Defence is the most basic function of Government, and a strong defence is the surest way to peace. By this decision, the Minister has put that status at risk, and he will he held to account if he gets it wrong.
9.49 am
Mr. David Health: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate. It is a great pleasure for me to take part, because I represent the constituency that contains Yeovilton, Where much of the Fleet Air Arm is based— although if the boundary commission has its way, it will be moved to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I Would consider that a great loss.
We are pound of the Fleet. Air Arm, which is the oldest air service in this country. We are proud of both its history and its future capabilities. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that capability in some of their recent decisions, but the decision on the Harriers has rightly caused some consternation, not least because of the personal issues associated with the crew and
74WH
families at Yeovilton, who have faced considerable disruption in the past year or so. First, they were told that they were to leave Somerset for what I was criticised in the papers for calling "the wilderness of Lincolnshire". I withdraw that comment unreservedly. I am sure that Lincolnshire is a delightful place, but it is not where the crew and their families want to live, having built their lives in Somerset. They have faced considerable uncertainty. They have made career and family decisions based on a decision that was subsequently rescinded. It is regrettable that the information on which so recent a decision was based has in a short time changed so much that the decision has been reversed.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. The fact that the Government were planning to transfer the Sea Harriers to Lincolnshire underlines the short-term nature of their decision. It was not the intended decision; they made it under budgetary pressures in the short term. It was originally intended to extend the life of the Sea Harriers and deploy them from Lincolnshire.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my point. This is an example of the Ministry's short-term thinking, which is difficult to defend to the people involved, however grateful I am to see a continuation of their presence in Somerset in years to come.
The hon. Member for Poole raised the wider issue that the decision strikes at the heart of the expeditionary strategy, which was the basis of the strategic defence review. I welcomed the development of the strategy, which puts amphibious operations at the heart of the future capabilities of the British armed forces, treats the Navy as a crucial element of that capacity, and envisages the amphibious taskforce as a basic unit of deployment in the Navy. However, if that strategy is to be successful, the decision on the Sea Harriers leaves many questions, because it leaves an amphibious force no air-to-air capacity and no forward detection capability beyond the horizon offered by rotary aircraft above the taskforce. The decision suggests that the Ministry has taken the view that within the relevant period an amphibious taskforce can and will be deployed only in the context of littoral warfare, and only with support from America or other navies that still enjoy air-to-air capacity.
Although I understand that rationale, it begs the question what happens in the case of the unexpected and the unknowable. To what extent is an expeditionary strategy constrained by that lack of capacity? As we have heard, eventually we will have type 45s, which will provide missile defence in the form of PAAMS, but that is an untried system, and as a replacement it will need to work from day one.
The second strand of replacement is the joint strike fighter, but there are questions about the JSF's design and how far advanced its marinisation is. There is a conundrum: the Government have announced that they want to have two carriers, but they cannot be designed until we know the form of the aircraft that will fly from those carriers. The whole process is held up while we wait for the Americans to work on the marinisation of the JSF.

75WH
Have the Government accepted a curtailment of the capacity of the expeditionary strategy during the interim period? How soon will we have firm proposals for the marinisation of the joint strike fighter, and at what stage will firm design proposals for the new carriers be possible? What will happen to our existing carriers in the interim—at what stage will one or both of the operational carriers be taken out of service? Do those carriers have the capacity to convert to rotary wing use, which would enhance our amphibious capacity and might supplement HMS Ocean, which is one of the most important elements of the strategy?
Is it clear that the contribution made by naval air capacity is crucial to the future defence of this country and to the deployment further afield that the Government clearly want to use and have used frequently in the past few years? If so, are they willing to put in the investment that will make the means equal to the ends?
9.56 am
Mr. Mark Prisk: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing such a timely debate. I declare an interest in that two members of my family are serving officers in the Royal Navy.
The Government's on-the-hoof decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier is bad for both the Navy and its personnel. I contend that it reduces the capability of the joint force Harrier. Most significantly and as highlighted by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), it will undermine the pivotal role of the Royal Navy in the future defence of this country and its role in an expeditionary force.
The Sea Harrier has served this country well. The original version was at the heart of the naval campaign in the Falklands, where, even shorn of its current capabilities, it showed its defensive strength on several occasions. Since then, the Sea Harrier has been radically upgraded. Only three or four years ago, at the time of the strategic defence review, it was clearly intended by the Government to be the provider of air defence for the Royal Navy all the way through to 2012. All the documentation and information that the Royal Navy has published clearly supports that intention, so the last-minute decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier 10 years earlier than was previously anticipated seems peculiar.
What is the reason? Ministers say, "Well, the aircraft is ageing," but we are discussing the FA2, which only began service in approximately 1993—indeed, one of those aeroplanes was delivered only three years ago, in 1999. It is not an ageing aircraft. If it were, Ministers might be less able to sell it to other countries. We are told that the engine will not be able to cope with the heat, yet it has served in Sierra Leone and the Gulf. It is said, "Well, don't worry because the Harrier GR7 and GR9 will replace it," but those aircraft are designed specifically as a ground attack plane—a specific and different purpose. To replace a defensive aircraft with a ground attack aircraft is like trying to replace a shield with a spear. They are inherently different in their function and, operationally, such a replacement makes no sense.
76WH
The unstated reason is, as usual, money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole pointed out, in practical terms, the Royal Navy will be left without a defensive fixed-wing aircraft for at least six years—and probably 10 years. We all accept that air defence should be provided in layers, the first and most important of which is the Sea Harrier; therefore to remove that layer will inevitably increase the risk to our ships and service personnel. I understand that the Minister of State for Defence has already accepted that possibility, but I ask the Minister present today whether he believes that our service personnel should have to accept such a risk. After all, it is their safety on the line, not his.
Another argument put forward by the Government is that the type 45 destroyer will fill the gap. That is to overlook the tiny detail that one is a ship and the other is a subsonic aircraft. There are other problems. The type 45 does not have the Sea Harrier's over-the-horizon radar and, as we heard earlier, there will not be sufficient numbers to provide complete cover in any realistic sense until at least 2010. Also, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly pointed out, the much vaunted PAAMS missile system is still in a box and has yet to be tested. We do not know whether it will work: it may be superb, but it may fail. That is the risk that Ministers are taking.
Perhaps the most ironic result of the decision to scrap Sea Harriers is that the capability of joint force Harrier will be set back, because, as we have heard, Sea Harrier has the Blue Vixen radar and GR7/9 does not. Therefore, joint force Harrier will now have to rely on the one aircraft that does not have that radar. That is a retrograde step and although I appreciate that the Minister is not directly responsible for the decision, I hope that he will confirm that in his reply.
The Government's on-the-hoof decision will undermine the Navy's expeditionary role—a critical role that lies at the heart of the whole characteristic of the strategic defence review. All expeditionary sea forces need air defence — ask any Falklands veteran. Even 20 years ago, the Sea Harrier was able to take out 28 Argentine aircraft for the loss of only two of our own in combat. Sea Harrier is essential to any taskforce or similar naval operation.
Without our own naval air defence aircraft, the MOD is asking the Royal Navy to face an invidious choice. This country must either rely on the forces of another country if we sail beyond our own shores, or take the huge risk of travelling without proper cover; or we must play safe and the Royal Navy become a coastal defence force. The Minister does not have to take my word for that. Lieutenant-Commander Peter Burgess wrote to The Daily Telegraph at the end of March, saying:
"Without the Harriers, the Royal Navy is reduced to a coastal force. Any attempt to operate elsewhere would place an unacceptable risk on any task group and the elements it supports."
Twenty years ago, this country sailed across the world in defence of its interests. Today, under the Labour Government, there is every danger that our services would be unable to repeat a mission on that scale and would instead be restricted to our coasts. I appreciate that this is not the Minister's area of responsibility and I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to participate in this debate. Clearly, he has other priorities. However, I say to the Minister that the

77WH
decision represents a cut too far. It is operationally unsound and strategically inept, and I call upon him to reconsider, go back to the drawing board and plan again.
10.4 am
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak and especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for securing this debate, which goes to the heart of our future defence policy. I have never been in the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the Fleet Air Arm, but I have been carried by and served under the protection of the Fleet Air Arm, and I was hugely grateful in both instances for the professionalism and dedication of that service.
I should like to start with a quote:
"The removal of the air arm from the control of the Navy left the fleet vulnerable to air attack and meant that the endeavour that had cost so much British blood could not be completed effectively."
On St. George's day 1918, there was a combined attack on the German naval base at Zeebrugge. Admiral Sir Roger Keyes felt that, despite the death of nearly 1,000 bluejackets and Royal Marines, the nation's safety was still endangered because he did not have aircraft in his control, as the Royal Naval Air Service had recently been transferred into the nascent Royal Air Force. I suggest that we may be putting ourselves in a similar position today.
The lessons of history were heeded at first. Our understanding of the projection of power from or by ships into the air both for coastal and blue-water defence developed into the Fleet Air Arm. That led to our outstanding naval successes in the second world war, the Korean war and, most recently, in the Falklands. What worries me horribly about the gap of at least six years that will be left is that the lessons of history have been ignored.
A great deal has been said and, for the sake of brevity, I shall not repeat much of the technicalities. I shall talk about the essential difference between the FA2 and the GR7/GR9. We have heard the splendid analogy made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) of the shield and the spear. We should take that further and use it to try to understand the layered element that the use of Sea Harriers gives the Royal Navy.
We know about the medium-range Sea Dart, which has the limitations of its age and radar, and about the closer-range Sea Wolf. There is also the last-ditch defence, the Phalanx gun, which we trust and hope will—as it did in many cases in the Falklands—interdict enemy aircraft attacking the fleet. However, the Sea Harrier is the shield, or more properly the eyes and ears of the Navy. It is capable of seeing beyond not only the physical horizon but the radar horizon provided by the Royal Navy's current radar suite. Without that aircraft not only to interdict but to see and report for maritime reconnaissance, the Navy is effectively blinded.
The GL7 is and the improved GL9 will be an impressive aircraft that will fill much of the capability gap for ground attack. However, the aircraft has no defensive capability, and it has precious little reconnaissance capability without the radar system that the FA2 already has. These systems are still highly
78WH
vulnerable to a sea-skimming attack by, for example, the Exocet and the much-improved modern versions of that missile, which are too numerous to mention. We are told that PAAMS will fill that gap much better than the Sea Dart can in the interim, before the joint strike fighter comes on stream.
I have personal understanding of two systems of radar and radar-controlled missiles. The first is Sea Owl, which was a naval system that was meant to be extremely well adapted, capable and competent for use at sea. We tried to adapt that system for use in the Victor towers in south Armagh, to oversee the landscape in that difficult countryside. Eventually, we got the system working, but it was not as adaptable as we had hoped, and there were all sorts of glitches. That meant that our operational effectiveness as soldiers on the south Armagh border was severely hampered until the equipment worked.
Secondly, and much more pertinently, I have experience of the Rapier system. As many of my hon. Friends will know, the Rapier was developed for point defence of military instillations against ground-attack aircraft. It worked extremely well, and was designed for the cold war. It was extensively troop-trialled, and was embarked with a naval force to go to the Falklands. It was thought to be highly effective until it was established as point defence in winds of up to 70 or 80 mph, at which point the system failed. Eventually, those involved got the thing working, but in the interim operational effectiveness had been severely curtailed and British Marines and paratroopers had died as a result of ground attack. The system simply did not work and had not been tried in such conditions.
I urge the Minister not to place too much faith in an untried system. Any soldier, sailor or airman will make the point that equipment must be tried. Until such time as it is tried, PAAMS cannot be relied on to plug the gap that will be at least six years in duration. I do not want to iterate points that have already been made, but an aircraft that may be ageing, obsolescent and under severe trial in hot and dusty conditions is none the less battle proven and, most importantly, still commands the faith and trust of its pilots. I speak from personal experience—a Harrier coming in at low level over the top of one is a hugely reassuring sight. Until such time as we have a proper, reliable and sensible replacement, I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision.
We have heard that the Navy has been reduced to coastal protection. I take that a stage further: it is almost a fisheries protection fleet. That is all that we have. Without the aircraft, the Navy is effectively blinded. Someone once said that, if nothing else, war is the province of confusion and uncertainty. Until such time as we can guarantee that we can operate without crucial help from allies, to propose that we should operate only under an American or French air umbrella is simply ridiculous.
One point that I do not believe has been mentioned is that there will be a vital training gap until such time as our two new carriers are on stream. That will be sometime between 2012 and 2015, by which time the Fleet Air Arm, or what remains of it, is likely to have lost any capability that it has for the style of operation involved. It is not an operational style that is quickly

79WH
acquired or understood, and we do a grave disservice to both our surface fleet and our Fleet Air Arm by not allowing them to maintain that capability.
In conclusion, I simply say this: all the time, the armed forces have a finger pointed at them and are told that they are preparing for the last war—they are blamed for not looking over the horizon and preparing for the next war. However, in this instance we have neglected the lessons of the last war and previous wars. One thing is certain: we can never be certain. To protect against uncertainty, we must keep the Sea Harrier in service.
10.13 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Occasionally, the MOD throws up a decision that is so bizarre or so illiterate, as the shadow Secretary of State described the decision this morning on the radio, that some analysis has to be carried out to ascertain how it could possibly have reached such a conclusion. Inevitably, we find that the dead hand of the Treasury sits behind the reason why the MOD has reached an extremely strange conclusion.
I take issue with one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). He said that he would not want to be in the Minister's shoes if and when Royal Navy sailors incur the decision's potentially awful consequences. By the time the decision comes into effect, the Minister will be long gone—being, in Sir Robin Day's famous words, "A here today, gone tomorrow Minister", as all Ministers are. It is likely that the Minister who will carry the can at that stage is sitting on the Benches alongside my hon. Friend. I therefore hope that the MOD will review the decision, but not merely in the interests of one of my hon. Friends, who may have responsibility for the matter in future.
The decision is important because the consequences at some point down the line are potentially catastrophic. The MOD is making a decision now that will have an effect in 12 or 14 years' time. The analysis that it has advanced in support of the decision not to upgrade the FA2s and to keep them in service until the joint strike fighter comes on line does not bear scrutiny. The risks that the Ministry is taking, such as those associated with PAAMS and the difficulty of bringing such technology into service on time, are far too great. The MOD's claim that the type 45s will be delivered on time and in sufficient numbers to cover the gap left by the FA2s does not bear analysis either.
In its 1998 strategic defence review, the MOD confirmed the decision taken by the previous Conservative Government and announced in the 1997 general election manifesto to replace existing carriers with new ones. It was an expensive decision, and the necessary investment must be behind it if it is to be delivered. I speak as a veteran of three long-term costings rounds, in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will remember from your service on the Select Committee on Defence that at that time the defence budget was under significant pressure. Money is the reason why the MOD has come up with a decision that flies in the face of the overall strategy of the SDR and violates the principles of the entire direction of British defence policy as set out in 1998. The Ministry is plainly scratching round within each area of its budget for savings to meet the budget line.
80WH
The whole LTC process is always an effort to get a quart into pint pot, and it occasionally throws up painful decisions. Perhaps this is a case of royal yachting gone wrong. To those hon. Members who are not familiar with royal yachting, I should explain that when the Navy was asked for cuts, the first thing it offered was the royal yacht. It knew that as long as there was a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, there was no question of the royal yacht being taken as a defence cut. Eventually that strategy became discredited, but it did not stop the Navy continuing with it from time to time. I suspect that someone may have made the suggestion about the FA2s in the firm knowledge that as we now have a carrier strategy and as the whole of the MOD's policy is predicated on expeditionary capacity and a proper ability to defend the fleet, there could be no question of taking the FA2s.
Optimistic calculations give us a six-year gap, but the aircraft will start to come out of service in 2004 and will be completely out of service by 2006. The gap will last between six to eight years—and that is an optimistic estimate. There may be problems bringing a new carrier into service. We may have to wait until we know the exact capability and requirements of the new joint strike fighter. The timetable may slip—they always do—and we could be carrying a risk for a wholly unacceptable period.
Those who put this measure in LTC 2002 may have believed that it would never be accepted, yet it has been. The decision may have been taken because of the consequences that the carrier strategy, which I endorse, has for expenditure in other areas. Some painful decisions are having to be taken in the land and air budgets. Perhaps this was an opportunity for a little bit of revenge to be taken inside the MOD. Who knows what happened in the internal MOD debate and exactly what the motivations are of the staff who accepted the measure and allowed it to be put to Ministers? None the less, Ministers must understand that their job is to take decisions, and they are the ones who have to engage with the Treasury to ensure that the defence strategy to which the Government have set their hand will be properly funded.
In the light of the decision on the FA2s, one has to conclude that the Government are not prepared to invest properly in the defence policy that they have announced and to which they have committed the country. It cannot be right for the Government to accept the appalling risk created by the length of time that the Royal Navy will be without a proper air-to-air capability that would enable it to act, if necessary on its own, in circumstances that it is impossible to predict, in the next decade and beyond. The decision vividly illustrates the fact that the Ministry of Defence appears to have lost its debate with the Treasury about securing proper funding for the 1998 strategic defence review and the new chapter.
The Government must collectively reconsider. The Secretary of State for Defence must make it clear that the position is unacceptable and that he must have a properly funded defence strategy. If the Government will not provide the means, they must re-evaluate their strategy—an uncomfortable conclusion—because there is no point in having a carrier-based, expeditionary strategy to enable the United Kingdom to operate around the world if that strategy is not properly funded

81WH
and equipped. We are conning ourselves about our ability to sustain that strategy if we are not willing to give the means to support it. Our servicemen will pay the price, and that is unacceptable.
10.21 am
Mr. David Laws: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, and I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for having raised the subject. All our defence debates are important, but some are more important than others, and this debate addresses one of the biggest issues that has arisen in defence policy since the election—and perhaps for considerably longer than that. We are talking about losing for years not merely a small portion of our capability in a particular defence area, but our entire capability in that area.
The case for the prosecution has been made effectively in the speeches by the hon. Members for Poole, for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). However, from the perspective of actually having a debate, it is a pity that we have not heard the other side of the argument, because that would have made it possible for us to engage more fully with the points that we will hear shortly from the Minister.
I take particular pleasure in being able to take part in the debate because of the proximity of the Yeovilton air base to my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, when we are both swept back into power after the next election, we may find that boundary changes make the Yeovilton air base part of my constituency.
The main arguments have already been thoroughly covered, but I wish to raise several points. The one common factor in all our debates on defence is the need for our forces to retain flexibility, so that we can respond to all the different challenges we face in this post-cold war era, wherein we do not know where the next threats will come from. In the 1970s, many people considered it unlikely that we would fight a campaign such as the one we fought in the Falklands in the early 1980s. The Sea Harrier was vital to our success in that campaign—indeed, it is difficult to imagine how we could have won that war without the contribution of the Sea Harrier. None of us are in a position to know whether we will have to fight similar campaigns in future, and the Government are making a serious mistake if they base their policy on the experiences of recent times.
On 28 February, the Minister of State for Defence sent a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)—and, no doubt, to the Conservative defence spokesman—that explained the reasons for taking the decision. The Minister wrote:
"The SDR emphasised the requirement for increased carrier-based offensive air-power. This has been borne out by operations in recent years in which it has been the ground attack capabilities of the Harrier GR7 that we have needed most on our carriers."
That may be so, but the Minister was wrong to imply that because that has been the experience of recent years, it will remain the experience in the future.
82WH
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence will know that there is not only the question whether we need Sea Harriers to defend our fleet in the future, but the fact that in some conflicts we will need aircraft that can defend our ground-attack aircraft against attack from other aircraft. An officer who served with the Fleet Air Arm in the Falklands conflict put that point to me this morning. One consideration that we have perhaps underplayed so far is the great concern felt by experienced, serving and former members of the armed forces about the Government's decision. That includes the taskforce commander in the Falklands, who said that it would be impossible to mount a similar campaign now without the protection that Sea Harriers currently provide and that we will shortly lose.
I do not want to open up a gap between my Conservative colleagues and myself, but we should also address the Government's intentions in respect of European Union military capability. Were the Government not intending combat aircraft, including Sea Harriers, to form an important part of that military capability? What decisions have the Government taken about the gap that will be opened up with their future inability to deliver on their commitment to our EU partners regarding the availability of Sea Harriers to act as air defence for our fleet and, potentially, the ships of other EU navies?
Mr. Menzies Campbell: My hon. Friend raises a very important point that relates to not only the European security and defence policy, but our NATO allies. The capability represented by the Sea Harriers is a NATO capability in the sense that it is available to NATO. Does my hon. Friend have any information about the extent to which the Government's decision was the subject of consultation with our NATO allies, particularly the United States, to whom we might have to look for the protection that the Sea Harriers currently provide?
Mr. Laws: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, but sadly such matters are beyond me. No doubt the Minister will be able to enlighten us about any discussions that took place with EU and NATO allies before the Government took such a fundamental decision.
Other hon. Members have commented on the gaps that will exist in the lines of defence for the fleet and our other various lines of air defence. That is not only because the Sea Harriers—the furthest out line of defence—are proposed to be removed for some years with nothing in their place, but because there will be holes in the missile defence based on the destroyers. Again, the Minister of State for Defence did not reassure us in his letter of 28 February. In explaining the departure of the Sea Harriers, he said:
"The entry into service of the Type 45 destroyer, equipped with the Principal Anti-Air Missile System from 2007 will provide the Royal Navy with a world class maritime area air defence capability."
Not only are we talking about another gap before we can be sure that that capability is in place, but, as other hon. Members have said, no serious individual with even the remotest experience of military matters would

83WH
consider that a missile system based on a destroyer could offer any protection comparable to the types of defence that the Sea Harriers can and have offered.
Mr. Heath: Is not the obvious conclusion that the Government's decision represents, at least in the medium term, a substantial change to the strategy of the Royal Navy and United Kingdom forces? As such, is it not extraordinary that the Government announced that not as a change in strategy, but as either a procurement decision or a decision based on the location of units in the United Kingdom, neither of which does credit to the fundamental decision that has been taken?
Mr. Laws: My hon. Friend is right. It is difficult to deduce the significance of the decision in the press release in which the Ministry of Defence announced it. It merited a more significant statement, so that the matter could be properly debated in the House first.
The hon. Member for Newark mentioned skills, which are important. Over the past few years, aircrew have built up significant experience in air-to-air defence activities. If they no longer engage in those activities and if those skills are not in place for the next few years, we may lose a vital part of our capability. Even if we have new aircraft to fulfil the Sea Harriers' role, it will take some time to acquire the skills that were deployed to such effect in the Falklands conflict.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the decision raises a fundamental question about the Government's approach to defence policy. We understood that the Government wanted to have large carriers in the years ahead-hopefully, shortly after 2012; presumably, they would have not only ground-attack aircraft, but aircraft that could fulfil the Sea Harriers' role. How can the Government take a decision that involves so much expenditure on new aircraft and aircraft carriers that are so fundamental to our future defence needs and argue that we can limp along for the next few years with a couple of much smaller carriers with no serious air defence capability for themselves, the fleet or the ground attack aircraft? This is an important part of air defence policy, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole for having raised the issue.
On 29 April, the Minister of State was kind enough to acknowledge in the House:
"There is an associated risk attached to all of this".-[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 660.]
Many hon. Members have concluded that the Government are taking not only a risk, but a serious gamble with their defence policy, and with the lives and security of the service men whom we ask to do important jobs on our behalf.
10.32 am
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on obtaining this debate on such an important subject. We have expressed the serious concern felt in this Chamber and by many well informed members of the defence community with little, if any, party political point scoring.
84WH
I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that we have not had much of a debate so far. I will be brief, so that the lonely Minister can express his and the Government's thinking. It is disappointing that the Government have been so unwilling to engage in the debate. This morning's Daily Telegraph reported that it sought to publish the Government's point of view, but that Ministers declined to be interviewed. What sort of open government is that? The Government have an obligation to be braver and to explain more. It is an insult not to me, but to the Royal Navy and the services that the Secretary of State for Defence is meant to represent that he will not engage in the debate.
Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend might not have heard the comment made twice by the Under-Secretary of State from a sedentary position. The answer to the question, "Where is the Secretary of State?" was, -He's working." That indicates his view that coming to the Chamber to answer this important debate is not work. Is that not a disgraceful attitude?
Mr. Jenkin: I have no animus towards the Under-Secretary of State, but I sent a message through him that I would be taking part in the debate and that I hoped that the Secretary of State would attend. That is why this Chamber exists. [Interruption.] The fact that the Under-Secretary of State is muttering betrays his embarrassment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Please do not be so pompous.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall not rise to that insult.
There is emotion attached to the question because the Sea Harrier became such a symbol of British military prowess and expertise during the Falklands conflict. It is worth recalling that 4 May 20 years ago last Saturday was the day that HMS Sheffield was hit by a sea-skimming missile. A year ago tomorrow, it finally sank. That is the price we may find ourselves paying for inadequate fleet air defence. We did not have enough of the previous variant of the Sea Harrier in theatre to provide round-the-clock air defence at that stage of the conflict. We were reliant on ship-based radar, which provided barely more than a minute's warning to manoeuvre craft to a more advantageous position and deploy counter-measures. As Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward subsequently explained, ultimately, HMS Sheffield was out on the edge of the defence perimeter to act as a sacrificial decoy, to save the more important ships of the taskforce. We might find ourselves in that position again because of the decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier FA2s from 2004 onwards.
The debate is not about the past or about emotion; we must engage constructively to ensure that we understand why the Government have made their decision. As we have heard from all hon. Members participating in the debate, that decision not only potentially puts the lives of our service men at risk and imperils the operational capability of the British Navy, but it is a militarily illiterate decision in the context of the expeditionary concept of warfare set out in the SDR and in "Options for Change" under the Conservative Government. The purpose of the Government's

85WH
supposedly foreign policy-led defence policy is to be able to deploy a battle group with the full spread of high-intensity warfare capability to fight medium-sized wars in any corner of the world. Without comprehensive air cover, that capability will no longer exist.
Many of the technicalities have been covered. The FA2 is not comparable with the GR7 or the upgraded variant, the GR9, which do not have radar that can track 20 targets simultaneously 70 miles away from the aircraft, 100 miles away from the battle group. The first key capability of the FA2 is its deep penetration 100 to 200 miles away from the battle group, seeing over the horizon. The second is the AMRAAM—the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile. Even the upgraded variant, the GR9, will carry only the Sidewinder missile, which is a short-range missile requiring visual contact that can be used only in daylight and is ultimately a weapon of self-defence rather than a weapon for taskgrouped defence. GR7/GR9 is a slower aircraft: if it encounters fighter aircraft—Russian Migs or French Mirages—it will be outrun. It will not be able to catch up with the target if it is attempting to attack. It will not be able to escape an attacking aircraft because it is too slow. That leaves the GR7s and GR9s—which are supposed to replace the FA2—deeply vulnerable to attack.
Reference has been made to the militarily dyslexic assertion that the type 42 and new type 45 destroyers
"will herald a quantum leap in our maritime air defence capability".
That is the sort of rubbish that should end up at the bottom of deep-trenched latrines in Kabul. It is no serious contribution to a debate on defence. Radar capability on these destroyers will be a mere 20 nautical miles. Even with the new helicopter-based airborne early warning system, it might extend no more than 70 nautical miles—not the vital hundreds of miles that provide the crucial first and second layers of air defence that the fleet requires in order to remain capable.
The only possible conclusion is that the Government have decided that compromise requires us to forgo a considerable element of our expeditionary capability. That means that they do not foresee the need for that capability—what an extraordinary risk to take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out, the only certainty is that things are uncertain. Who could have foreseen an amphibious assault on Sierra Leone led by British forces? Who could have foreseen that we would send a huge taskforce to fight in the Gulf war in the early 1990s? Who could have foreseen that we would send 1,000 Royal Marines to do battle with terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan at the same time as an infantry battalion and headquarters were managing peacekeeping in Kabul? The precise purpose of our defence policy is to provide for the unforeseen. If the unforeseen happens, how long do we have to prepare for it? How many times in history can we look back and say that we wish we had what we have not? The Falklands was a case in point; we need go back no further than that.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have been here before? When a previous Labour Government decided to get rid of strike carriers, the Gannet airborne early warning system was scrapped as well. That proved to be the main
86WH
weakness of the taskforce that went to the Falklands. We have been there before, but we did not learn the lesson. What on earth are the Government up to?
Mr. Jenkin: One can conclude only that Ministers have cajoled themselves into this decision on the basis of advice from the services about what is available. Our armed services are brilliant at making do. If they have been told that they must make do with less than they really need, they will not appear on the television screens to say that it cannot be done. That is not in their character and we should not expect them to do so. It is for Ministers to ask themselves whether the advice that they are receiving is the best that could have been provided if the strategic defence review had been properly funded from the start. We know from the comments of Lord Guthrie in another place in December that the SDR was underfunded from the start.
No doubt the Minister will speak about obsolescence: he will say that the aircraft is obsolete, the engine inadequate, and so on. Every piece of defence equipment becomes obsolete, but many obsolete pieces can prove extremely effective in certain types of conflict. We can all agree that it is desirable to upgrade the Sea Harriers' engine and we know that it will be expensive. Even if the Government cannot afford the engine upgrade, I submit that Sea Harriers with the existing engine remaining in service as long as possible is much better than no Sea Harriers at all. We should not be scrapping them all on the basis that they cannot deploy in extreme tropical conditions when they will be capable of deployment everywhere else. Even in extreme tropical conditions, we could deploy them, perhaps with fewer munitions and a lighter load of fuel, to perform their essential airborne early warning function.
That option would be better than scrapping the Sea Harriers altogether simply because the Government think that they cannot afford the upgrade. Money is, of course, at the heart of this issue. The real question is whether the Government are capable of funding the strategic defence review by which they set so much store when it was launched in 1998.
The purpose of drawing attention to the Sea Harriers in an emotional way is that the decision about them betrays what is going on in the armed forces in a way that we can communicate to the public. The scrapping of long-distance weapons programmes and the downgrading of other technical capabilities do not seize the public imagination. That may be why Ministers have chosen Sea Harriers: it is the bleeding-stumps syndrome, where something visible is cut to up the ante in negotiations with the Treasury. Those negotiations are the real crunch point in the Government's defence policy. It is meant to be foreign policy led, but is proving to be anything but.
I shall conclude my remarks now to give the Minister plenty of time to respond. I hope that he can also take one or two interventions. His purpose must be to explain a major change in the Government's defence policy and a major departure from their original intentions, but how he will square that circle, I do not know.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the

87WH
debate, which has given us a chance to explore an important issue. I shall preface my remarks with a couple of points that have gone astray in the Opposition's fantasy football league equivalent of defence. All our decisions are taken within the framework of a finite budget, so they all involve some form of opportunity cost or benefit forgone elsewhere. It is worth remembering that when considering what we are trying to do.
Mr. Blunt: The Minister should say what programmes have been kept in the budget. The Government's decision to strike out the Sea Harriers for the period that has been mentioned indicates the enormous pressure that the Ministry is under because of a wholly inadequate budget. He should shed some light on the alternatives that produced such an extraordinary conclusion.
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman did not listen: I said that we had a finite budget. In the real world, when one is in government, that is what one has to deal with. It is only in opposition that people have the luxury of a fantasy budget that can be expanded infinitely to take in every choice that they want to make.
Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No. In 12 minutes, I cannot go through all our programmes and the balance of choices that we had to strike when deciding what and what not to keep.
There have been many references to danger and past conflicts. I remind Opposition Members that all operational decisions that we make involve a balance of risk for our forces. We are well aware that we may call on our men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. We need no reminders about that from Opposition Members.
Last week, Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, in charge of commitments, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence. I shall paraphrase his remarks, because the evidence has not yet been published as a minute and has merely been placed on the internet for information. His comments provide an appropriate framework for our discussion. He said that to sustain the Sea Harrier—the FA2—beyond 2006 as a viable weapon system would require a great deal of investment and entailed substantial technical risk. He went on to say that a number of other areas of the programme required investment and, as ever, it was a question of balance of priorities. Given the need to balance the priorities and the risk, the decision was taken that it would not be sensible for that period of time to make the degree of investment in the Sea Harrier that would have been necessary to keep it viable in service.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. May I assist the Minister? The fact that the Committee's sitting was public and the transcript has gone out on the internet means that he can quote every word of it.
Dr. Moonie: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would hate to have overstepped the bounds of propriety in quoting from a Select Committee.
88WH
Sir Jock went on to ask:
"what is that we seek in terms of capability from our carriers? We seek the projection of offensive power. That was the purpose behind the decision to procure two new larger carriers in the defence review. The carriers are about the projection of offensive power in which the Sea Harrier plays a very small part and a reducing part as the technology. in terms of offensive power, moves on."
When questioned further, he said:
"I need to make clear, before moving on some more detail about air defence, why we have carriers in the first place and it is not to provide air defence for the fleet, it is to provide projection of offensive power. Clearly, if you have a fleet at sea. you need to make sure that it is properly protected from the range of threats that it might face: sub-surface, surface and from the air as well. We are introducing, as you know, the Type-45 Destroyer".
He went on to describe the future systems.
Patrick Mercer: Sir Jock Stirrup also said that he could not see that destroyers would ever wholly fill the capability that aircraft currently provided.
Dr. Moonie: Absolutely. No one has tried to pretend otherwise for a moment. If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully the remarks that were made last week, when Sir Jock was speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, he will see that we are well aware that any decision like the one that we are debating involves a balance of risk. Nobody has attempted to hide that—neither Ministers nor any of our senior military advisers who have led us to our decision
The Sea Harrier has had a long and distinguished career and the decision to withdraw the aircraft earlier than planned was complex. I welcome the opportunity to explain the decision that was announced on 28 February and how we plan to improve the utility of the joint force Harrier to meet today's and tomorrow's defence needs. The aircraft was procured in the mid 1970s to meet the threat posed principally by shadowing reconnaissance aircraft and long-range bombers threatening our anti-submarine forces operating in the north Atlantic in concert with United States Navy nuclear aircraft carrier battle groups.
The Sea Harrier entered service in 1979 and, as hon. Members have recalled, it achieved early operational success in the campaign to recover the Falkland Islands in 1982, accounting for 26 Argentine aircraft. Today, of course, the circumstances in Argentina and the nature of the Falklands garrison are entirely different. Beginning in 1994 the Sea Harrier fleet was upgraded to the FA2 standard to provide an enhanced capability for the following decade. When the Sea Harrier is withdrawn from service in 2006 it will have been in service for a significant length of time—more than 25 years, which is far longer than most of its predecessors in the Fleet Air Arm.
A strong theme throughout the strategic defence review was the importance of joint operations. The SDR concluded that the emphasis for the Invincible-class carriers had already moved away from cold war deep-water anti-submarine operations supported by the Sea Harrier providing a limited air defence capability. In future, as Sir Jock Stirrup said, the priority will be the delivery of flexible expeditionary air power, with an increased emphasis on ground-attack strike missions

89WH
from the embarked air group. That has been confirmed in the emerging conclusions of our post-11 September work.
Mr. Prisk: Is the Minister arguing that we do not need any air defence aircraft? Certainly all hon. Members present would accept that there is a case for having an increased ground-attack capability. The concern here is that the removal of all air defence capabilities removes the defence and security of the personnel. This long read-out passage, which seems to be replacing a speech, does not answer that question.
Dr. Moonie: I have already made the point, but I shall make it again. We are not saying that there is no change in the balance of risk, but our advice and the advice that we have received from the service chiefs on which we base our decisions is that the balance of risk is acceptable. We are not saying that in an ideal world we would not have every capability, but we do not live in an ideal world. We live in the real world and within that we must make decisions. The balance of risk has changed, but it remains acceptable.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the aircraft is old. The FA2, which was introduced in 1993, is a much newer aircraft than the Tornado GR1A or GR4A, which was introduced in 1989, or the Tornado F3, which was introduced in 1986, or the Jaguar, which the Government are keeping in service and which was introduced in 1973. The age of the aircraft is not relevant to the debate.
Dr. Moonie: Unfortunately, the age of the aircraft is relevant to the debate. The upgrade in the FA2 is concerned predominantly with avionics and other systems that are placed on the aircraft. The aircraft frame remains old. The aircraft structure remains old, and there is nothing that we can do about that. The hon. Gentleman has not properly examined what the upgrades involve. I now want to make some progress. As usual, I have given way far too often. I apologise to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for not giving way to him before, but I want to finish my remarks.
The strategic defence review included a commitment to establish a joint force Harrier—a joint, flexible and deployable force that is ideally suited to the demands of the new strategic environment. It was formed on 1 April 2000 under the command of 3 Group, Strike Command, and it operates two aircraft types. During 2001, it became evident that both Sea Harrier FA2 and the GR7 would require substantial investment over the next few years to ensure that they remained effective until replaced by the future joint combat aircraft. Upgrades to both aircraft types were considered, but the improvement and maintenance of one type was deemed achievable and preferable to maximise our ability to deliver carrier-based offensive air power in a joint force.
To ensure that the Harrier GR7 fleet maintains a credible expeditionary capability by day and night from land and sea until the introduction to service of the FJCA, several important aircraft system enhancements will be necessary, and they have been drawn together to form the GR9 upgrade programme. The GR9 aircraft will be able to communicate securely with each other
90WH
and with likely coalition parties, and they will be capable of employing the latest smart and precision weapons. They will enable the Harriers to deliver the Brimstone anti-armour missile, the precision guided bomb, the Maverick missile and so on. There will be considerable upgrades.
Mr. Francois: Those are tank busters.
Dr. Moonie: That is the ground attack role.
Mr. Francois: So the fleet is under threat from tanks?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Dr. Moonie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Because of what the Sea Harrier was designed to do and where it was designed to operate, there are limitations on the worldwide operational deployment of the FA2. That renders it incapable of operating to its full capability for certain periods of the year in the Gulf and the middle east due to the thrust limitations of its engine. While the FA2 possesses a capable weapon system, it would also require significant investment to remain effective beyond 2005 to deal with obsolescence and shortcomings in its radar and self-protection systems. Unlike the GR7, the FA2 was not designed to be able to take the more powerful Rolls-Royce Pegasus, so any engine upgrade would carry considerable technical risk.
In the light of those considerations, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence announced to the House on 28 February the Government's intention that the joint force Harrier should migrate to an all-Harrier GR force, maximising investment in one aircraft type.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I shall not. The Sea Harrier FA2 will therefore be withdrawn earlier than planned, by 2006. As a consequence of its earlier withdrawal from service, the planned relocation of Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft from RNAS Yeovilton to RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering in 2003 will not now proceed. The relocation of Royal Navy personnel will go ahead, but slightly later than planned, over the period 2004 to 2006. By 1 April 2007, joint force Harrier will have migrated to an all-Harrier GR9 force manned by roughly equal numbers of RN and RAF personnel.
Mr. Bacon: This is absolutely pathetic.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Bacon: This is absolutely disgraceful.
Dr. Moonie: Oh dear, I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have so disappointed Opposition Members, but I have to give the reply that will show exactly why the decision was made—and that is what I am

91WH
attempting to do. The decision was made in the real world, not the fantasy world that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seem to occupy.
The immediate urgency of the announcements made was to minimise nugatory expenditure on enabling work—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. I invite all hon. Members who are not staying to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

Biomedical Research Industries
11 am
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the impact of the biomedical industry on the economy of Scotland. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I grew up in an era when the belief that there was a job for life was instilled in most of us. We went to school, we left school and we hoped to start an apprenticeship. We imagined that we would join the thousands of men and women who marched through the factory gate every day with a piece in our pocket. We thought that we would do that for 40 years and would retire with our gold watches and dig our allotments or look after our grandchildren.
That world has disappeared in the past 20-odd years. I am not saying that I regret it, but the Dundee that I grew up in is nothing like the Dundee of today. For decades, our national reputation as the workshop of the world rested on the assumption that we had a unique manufacturing capacity. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I had already served my time in a shipyard and had then become an engineer. I imagined that I would be an engineer for the rest of my life. Not long after I became an MP, the shipyard closed and other manufacturing sectors started to disappear. I remember arguing with the Scottish Development Agency, as it was then, that we should do something to revive manufacturing industry in Dundee, if not in Scotland.
We received a good response from the Conservative Government at the time, who were a good bunch of Tories. They understood the need to support the economy in Scotland and did one or two things right. They got it wrong for the next 17 years, but initially they did things right. We in Dundee realised that we also had to change and we established the Dundee Project, which was the first of its kind in Scotland. A Labour-controlled town council worked with a Tory-controlled regional council and a Tory Government through the SDA. Each put their responsibilities into one pot.
The Dundee Project was established in 1980 and has since become the Dundee Partnership. Instead of a person having to go to the Government, local authorities and universities to find out if there were development opportunities, land and skilled people in the area, they were able to go through one door and obtain the information that they needed. It paid off.
As an engineer, I maintained that we should be searching the world for manufacturing companies to come to Dundee. A guy called Geoff Lonsdale—who has since moved on but is still working in the enterprise industry—said to me, "Look, Ernie, Dundee's future lies in the medical area." I looked at him, thinking that he was having me on. I thought he was trying to deter me from pursuing manufacturing companies and I could not understand how hospitals and doctors could create jobs. The biotechnology industry may have existed in America, but it did not exist even in anyone's head in Dundee, far less in terms of wealth creation there. That is why I am glad that we are having this debate.
Scotland is now a global player in the biotechnology sector. At the recent BioSquare conference in Switzerland, Scotland was ranked equal eighth in the

93WH
international league table for biotechnology sector development. Scotland now has 86 research and development companies employing a total of 3,897 people, 192 supply and support organisations employing 5,571, 99 medical device companies employing 6,714 and 51 research institutions employing 8,224. That makes a grand total of 428 organisations in Scotland employing more than 24,000 people.
Biotechnology is important for the health of the individual and the economy. The medical and scientific communities are presented with new challenges as the world's population grows and ages, and the demand for new and better medicines is expected to grow. There are many conditions for which there are not yet effective cures, such as cancer, heart disease, allergies and tropical diseases. Scotland has a vital role to play in world health terms to try to resolve that problem.
During the past three years, the biotechnology sector alone has grown by 30 per cent. The European bioscience market is expected to be worth £100 billion by 2005, so the Scottish bioscience community has a vital role to play in our economic future as well as a contribution to make to our health.
Growth in the sector is bound to create new opportunities on our doorstep, so that we can offer better jobs than working in the Dundee jute mills. More importantly, as an engineer I witnessed a loss of skill and talent in the 1970s and 1980s. During those decades, some of our brightest and best scientists moved abroad to apply their talents and there were many inquiries into how to reverse that trend. We are now witnessing such a reversal, with Scotland attracting research scientists from around the globe. We should all he proud of that.
I have often heard—usually from Opposition Members—that Scotland gets more than its share. On this occasion, I am prepared to accept that argument—but we are entitled to receive more. Scotland consistently secures a greater percentage share of funding from United Kingdom research councils. That is one piece of evidence that shows the ground-breaking, important and high-quality work going on in Scotland. Earlier, I mentioned the world-class nature of the research currently undertaken in Scotland. That is backed by the most recent research assessment exercise, which concluded that an 18 per cent. improvement in quality had been recorded—a faster rate of improvement than in any other part of the UK. We are entitled to more than our share, because of the quality of work being carried out in Scotland.
Although we can be justly proud of what has been achieved thus far, the biotechnology sector as we understand it, is still in its infancy. In the years ahead, it must continue to develop, and it can do so only by working in partnership. That partnership will involve collaboration between the Government, universities, the enterprise network, research funding institutes, local government, the pharmaceutical industry and private investors—all have been critical to what has been achieved. That same determination to work in partnership will be critical to our future success.
I have spent years attacking the pharmaceutical companies for the prices that they charge for their drugs. Now, I must admit that Dundee has benefited. The Wellcome Trust, the largest research trust in the world, gave Dundee scientists a substantial sum to open the
94WH
Wellcome Trust Biocentre in the university of Dundee. Although we want pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, we welcome the contribution that the pharmaceutical industry is making.
The Minister, who knows Dundee well—as do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will not be surprised to hear that Dundee is famed for many reasons. We used to be famous for jute, jam and journalism; comics such as The Dandy and the Beano, with Desperate Dan; and shipbuilding, the industry in which I served my apprenticeship. I remember walking through the door of the Caledon shipyard in 1958. We were trying to compete with the Japanese—the Koreans had not yet started to build ships. I went into the shed where the platers worked and saw a machine punching out holes for the rivets to go into the plates. The machine that we were using was built in 1921 and the Japanese were then building ships in sheds.
The Caledon shipyard launched many ships, some of which are still sailing the seas. Dundee built the Discovery, the ship that Captain Scott used to go to the Antarctic. Although it was locked in the ice for at least a year, the craftsmanship that went into building the ship ensured that it came back. That ship is now back in Dundee and is in the Discovery's visitor centre as the centrepiece of our maritime history.
One of the largest whaling fleets in Britain was based in Dundee. James Chalmers invented the adhesive postage stamp and James Bowman Lindsay the electric light. When Mary Shelley was staying on the Broughty Ferry road she came up with the concept of Frankenstein. That was nothing to do with Dundee, may I add; it just inspired her. Those hon. Members who had marmalade on their toast this morning should know that it was first made by Janet Keiller in Dundee. One of our local councillor's predecessors, the Belgian de Gernier family, brought fish and chips to Dundee. There is also the famous Dundee "peh"—or pie for the Hansard reporter—Timex and NCR.
All those industries will, to a greater or lesser degree, ensure Dundee's place in history. However, many are predicting that the city's relatively new biotechnology industry has the potential to eclipse the importance of all those examples of what Dundee has given to the world. Dundee is home to one of the most exciting research and biotechnology clusters and some of the most eminent research scientists to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom, if not the world. Dundee is home to Sir Philip Cohen; the Wellcome Trust building that I have mentioned; Sir David Lane, famous for p53, the cancer gene; Cyclacel; Professor Roland Wolfe; and Professor Sir Alfred Cuscheiri, a pioneer of non-invasive or keyhole surgery.
Dundee is tremendously fortunate to have some of the world's most highly regarded scientists. Their presence in the city has attracted many other research scientists from around the globe to work in the city. Such a concentration of expertise in life sciences has in turn led to a growth of leading companies and cutting edge spin-outs such as Axis-Shield plc, the largest biotech company in Scotland, and Cyclacel, the cancer therapeutics company which last year alone attracted £34 million in investment. I was delighted that the Prime Minister recently accepted an invitation to open the new Cyclacel premises and witness for himself the nature and

95WH
importance of the work being done there. That £34 million ranks it among the top three venture capital investments in Europe last year.
The city's two academic institutions have played a leading role in biotech development. Dundee university and the university of Abertay produce world-class research, develop extensive links with business, and demonstrate a willingness to exploit commercial opportunities. In Dundee university, Sir Philip Cohen, Sir David Lane and Peter Downes were named by the Institute for Scientific Information as three of the 15 most highly cited UK scientists between 1980 and 2000. That is the quality of person that we have managed to attract to Dundee. In the latest research assessment exercise, Dundee university achieved the highest—a five-star—rating for its entire school of life sciences, and the university of Abertay's environmental grouping, including the school of life sciences, achieved a four-star rating, its best ever.
The Wellcome Trust research centre in Dundee is home to a team of international scientists who are striving to understand the nature of diseases including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies and tropical diseases. I mentioned a moment ago the role of the biotech industry in Scotland in halting and reversing the brain drain about which we are all so worried. In Dundee, the Wellcome Trust research centre houses more than 250 scientists and has attracted world-class research scientists from 48 nations, including the United States, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and Japan, all working on what I grew up knowing as the Hackie. The only prominent thing on the Hackie when I was growing up was the Princess cinema and a street that, when the Queen was crowned 50 years ago, had a marvellous street party. Other than that, the Hackie was full of old industries such as jute mills. There is now a Wellcome Trust building, with 250 scientists from 48 countries on the Hackie. When I visit schools, I tell kids that their future lies on the Hackie—the Hawkhill. When I was growing up, if someone had said that our future lay on the Hackie, people would have thought that that person was mad. They would have brought along the van and wheeled him away. Yet on the Hawkhill we have 250 scientists from all over the world, living in Dundee.
The city has had to work hard to provide the right conditions for growth, expansion and the attraction of biotechnology ventures. Dundee is now home to 20 biotechnology companies and an emerging professional support sector. The most important of those conditions is partnership. As I said, the conscious decision made in 1980 to give up some political control and work in partnership is now reaping the reward. If Geoff Lonsdale were here today, I would be singing his praises even more. He understood where the future lay.
The city's two universities, Scottish Enterprise Tayside, Dundee city council and the Dundee business community have all played their part in the success that is Dundee's biotechnology industry, and we in Government must play our part. Support for the new emerging industry is vital for not only the Scottish economy but, probably more importantly, the world's health.
96WH
I am enormously proud that so many of the world's leading scientists call Dundee and Scotland home. The industry has shown remarkable growth, and with our support—I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments—the potential is mind blowing.
11.17 am
David Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on having initiated the debate and on his tour of Dundee. I am akin to some of his words, even on the other side of the Forth. The history that he developed through Dundee and the historic significance of former industries play a significant part in my constituency, too.
In the past 10 years, biotechnology in Midlothian has expanded beyond belief. I am slightly younger than my hon. Friend, and I remember the coal industry in Midlothian. When I started in the industry at 15 years of age, people went down the pit at 16 years of age. There were some 20 pits in Midlothian alone. There is now not one. The bad news is that in Fife, the last of the coal industry has now gone in Scotland as a whole. On every street near where I lived there was a miner or someone who worked for Ferranti, a big company at the time. People were guaranteed a job either as an apprentice or going through life as a painter and decorator, electrician or plumber—all the jobs that people cannot find nowadays because everyone goes to university. Has anyone tried to find a plumber? It costs a fortune. There is a lesson in that.
From that proud tradition of 20 collieries in Midlothian, we have moved on at quite a pace. Midlothian has undergone a transformation from minor specialising in biotechnology research—a transformation that many other areas in the country would emulate. Dundee has been going longer than Midlothian in relation to biotechnology, but I am glad to say that we are beginning to move fast in that area.
In 1998, I and a group of people from research organisations went to north America to visit key centres of technology in Massachusetts, San Diego and Vancouver. During that week of hectic travel, we saw a mature biotechnology industry where both public and private sector groups are visibly working together to create a dynamic business environment.
People were positively encouraged to spin out of academic organisations to set up their own companies. We have still not mastered that. In the United Kingdom, academia takes a different view from the private sector, and they do not gel well, except in certain areas. That is getting better but, at present, we do not do what happens in north America, where the two sectors come together. That is a major area, in which we must make progress.
Support mechanisms were in place to ensure that the business planning processes were tailored to suit the individual needs of the company; that is another important area where we must begin to develop a strategy, if we want to move forward.
There were sensitive negotiations with regard to intellectual property, which were handled with fairness, against a background of partnership between the public and private sectors.

97WH
There was evidence of a mature financial sector, which understood the needs of the biotech sector; in particular, it was an environment where venture capital and angel finance seemed to be readily available. They are not always available in our country.
We saw an environment with a first-class range of incubation centres and science park developments that provide the technology sector with a range of physical facilities. That encouraged co-operation between academic groups and the business sector.
For me, the visit was a confirmation that what had already begun in Midlothian would have far-reaching positive effects for the entire region. For many years, the Bush estate—one of the development areas in Midlothian—has been recognised as a centre for agricultural research and development. That is where everything started. The concept of developing the Bush area as Edinburgh Technopole—a science city or precinct on the edge of the city—was first developed as long ago as 1990 by Edinburgh university, Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, and Midlothian council.
The additional development of the Pentlands science park proved to be a key milestone, which has been further enhanced by several other developments at the Bush, such as the Roslin institute; everyone has heard of the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and other developments have spun off from that.
However, there is a danger that we might begin to lose some of the expertise that we now have, if we do not begin to work hard together. Given the lack of finance, some of the scientists at Roslin are beginning to consider moving out. That is a big danger for Scotland; it is not a Midlothian issue, but a Scottish issue, and it must be addressed.
Other developments include Edinburgh university's Dick Vet small animal hospital, and a new campus at Gowkley Moss where Midlothian council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian have purchased land to allow a range of organisations to expand and develop their research and development and their manufacturing on the same site, which is another major step forward.
It is estimated that —50 million of capital development has taken place in Midlothian over the past 10 years. As a result, Midlothian now faces a problem; we are running out of land that can be used for the continued expansion of the area.
One of the key stakeholders in the rapid development of the biotechnology sector has been the East of Scotland European Partnership, which has supported a range of projects with both capital and revenue grants. With a physical environment in place which can match that of anywhere in the world, the biotech sector in Midlothian is beginning to develop a range of support services similar to that which we saw in north America.
The financial sector in Scotland is also beginning to respond more positively to the needs of the biotech sector. However, there are still investment gaps—such as the lack of venture capitalists, as has been mentioned.
It is not easy for an individual to set up a new company or form a spin-out company from an academic organisation. Where that company is also involved with complex technology, the technical risk often brings added worry for the entrepreneur. Another sign of the maturity of the technology sector in Midlothian is that the public and private sectors are working together.
98WH
I learned from my trip to North America that Scotland is very small on the international map. I recall that our guide in Boston said, "We are just going next door to see the next place." Next door was 40 miles away. We drove there. That is how our guide thought of the concept of "next door". Therefore, when we discuss Scotland and Midlothian, we must talk about Glasgow, Dundee and Midlothian as one place. It should not be a matter of Glasgow as opposed to Edinburgh or Midlothian as opposed to Dundee. We must consider the market as Scotland as a whole and work on that basis. The European market is one which we can dominate, and we are dominating it currently. With the legislative changes that are taking place, we can capture a major part of the American market with new developments.
There are fewer than 100 companies in Midlothian that, including everyone's support network, employ 2,000 people. With a population of 90,000, they are substantial employers in anyone's figures. We aim to increase that employment to 3,000 to 4,000 in the next two to three years, and with that in mind, I suggest that Members who have an interest meet Scottish Enterprise, with which we can develop a strategy on how to develop Scotland as a whole.
11.25 am
Mr. Iain Luke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on securing this debate on an industry that promises so much benefit in alleviating suffering and promoting health. We have both been keen on having the debate, not only because of the industry's medical significance but because of its growing importance to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It promotes jobs and economic well-being. My hon. Friend the Minister has taken a great interest in the subject and has also been keen to have a debate to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the biomedical and technical industry in Scotland to see what we can do to promote and foster it.
I am also glad to see the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). This is an important debate for her party, and we look forward to hearing her contribution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West commented, we are fortunate that our home town of Dundee is well placed to exploit the opportunities that have come its way as a result of successful research programmes in biomedical technology and the life sciences. I must point out that he has been around Dundee and Hawkhill much longer than I have, so he knows more about the differences in opportunities in Dundee's economic package, given the drastic changes in Dundee during the past 50 or so years.
The economic history of Dundee, and indeed Scotland, is characterised by innovation, excellence and the need to adapt to change, new demands, products and forms of production. That dynamic process has not always been easy, and sometimes it has been extremely difficult. Our city, and Scotland, has been blessed with an ability to adapt and flourish despite the difficulties that have beset us.
The universities have been mentioned, and it is almost unique for a city of Dundee's size to have two universities of such stature. Their long-term

99WH
development has proven them to be vital assets in the constant drive to meet change. Although they are often referred to as new universities, both Dundee university and Abertay university, in the guise of the Dundee Institute of Technology, have been around for well over 100 years. As a graduate of Dundee university, I know its history fairly well, but I must pay tribute to the development of the first biotechnology course, which was started 15 years ago at Abertay university in its previous life. Although they are described as new universities, they have done a great deal during the past 100 years and more to promote economic enterprise and encourage innovation in Dundee. That has often produced industrial developments and economic progress.
Both universities have developed biomedical research facilities and degree courses in biotechnology. That has been married with the creation of a first-class teaching hospital at Ninewells and, through the work of the universities and the Government, the promotion of high-quality medical research opportunities. As my hon. Friend said, those opportunities have attracted scientists and medical men with global reputations.
Mr. Ross: And women.
Mr. Luke: Yes, and women.
Dundee has become a world-class centre. It has put itself at the forefront of research and academic renown. Points have been made about the strength of the industry. Outwith Cambridge, Dundee has the highest percentage of life scientists and researchers per head of the country than any other part of the country. Reference was made to the top 15 renowned scientists in the UK, and three of them are working at Dundee university. The city and the university should be proud of that track record.
The city has been blessed by developments at both universities. As my hon. Friend said, the siting of the Wellcome Trust building—a major research facility for the UK and the world—also helped. It has played a significant role in bringing research work to the city, which has led to the discovery of new drugs and treatments that cure many life-threatening illnesses and diseases. The pioneering biomedical work at the university is closely linked to practice at Ninewells—Dundee's university teaching hospital. Sir Alfred Cuschieri's surgery has had a significant impact on the medical engineering and biomedical research worlds. These are all added dimensions to the industry that means so much to Scotland.
Abertay university has not been as heavily promoted in this area, but it has moved on and is working harder to become a leading player in computer technology and computer games, which is another industry that has a great impact on Scotland's economic base. It is showing much promise, and is working with countries such as Japan. The point has been made that the UK, Europe and the United States are great at inventing things, but Japan is probably the largest producer. This country invented CDs and cassettes, but they are produced overseas, especially in Japan.
We must enhance the work of our universities to transform Dundee's and Scotland's economic bases. The impressive growth in both Dundee's universities has
100WH
underlined Dundee's claim to be a city of academic excellence. That excellence has helped to create in Scotland the third largest biotechnology cluster after Cambridge and Thames valley. Dundee's success has been replicated in other areas of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) also made clear the importance of that industry to his area. We must give credit to all who have played their part in creating such a vibrant and viable sector in the Scottish economy, which plays on traditional Scottish strengths of education, excellence and inventiveness.
The biomedical technology industry has given substance to the Scottish economy in which IT and the microchip industry have supplanted the old manufacturing base. The IT and microchip sector is global, but has had its problems with recent downturn. As the Scottish manufacturing base changes, those areas of excellence must be promoted to ensure that the economy continues to grow and prosper. The healing influences of the biomedical research industry will, I hope, provide a soothing ointment to ensure that in any future downturn and rush of attendant economic consequences, distresses are mended or even avoided.
It is important also to note the progress that has been made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West made clear. Certain initiatives have helped, such as the research and development grants that the Budget proposed, and the review of the incubator grant—a fund specifically targeted to kick-start such facilities. My hon. Friend mentioned the progress that has been made in the Lothian area. The Dundee project provides a unique partnership, in which the local enterprise company, the local council, the university, chambers of commerce and the Wellcome Trust development play an important role in developing a strategy for the future economic growth of the city. That has to be looked at as a microcosm. Within that strategy, Dundee has seen, as in Lothian, the creation of a technopole, sometimes called a crucible, whereby the products of research development in the universities can be transferred to production, providing jobs and prosperity. Production can be diversified.
In February my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland had an opportunity to see the fruits of this activity first hand when they visited and opened Cyclacel Ltd. in our crucible and technical park. The company is engaged in the production and development of novel cancer therapies in its new Dundee premises just off Hawkhill; it is also based in Cambridge. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister as well as the spokesman for the Conservative party will have the chance to visit the endeavour and see at first hand what goes on there. They would see the products of men and women employed in the research operation in Dundee. Sir David Lane and his wife Bridget have been at the heart of this enterprise, which is now of global significance.
The potential was made clear by Shield Diagnostic, or Axis-Shield as it is now known. The company started as a collaboration between Dundee university and Tayside region, as it was then, a council responsible for industrial promotion. An enterprise share fund was created and it financed the first steps of the development on the road to Axis-Shield. which is now another global impact company. It employs more than 100 people in Dundee. Others are employed in Norway, where the

101WH
company joined forces with the Norwegian-based Axis-Biochemicals. The company is now highly innovative and is moving into vital diagnostic products with significant global market potential in meeting future current and future health care needs, as set out in its mission statement. It is another success story. It started some time ago, but we should not overlook it because it points to the way ahead for the Scottish economy.
That follows in the steps of another pioneering Scot, Alexander Fleming, who discovered the wonder drug penicillin, which has saved so many lives. Medical research and the production of new medicines and drugs is a critical part of the sector, worth millions of pounds—£100 million was mentioned earlier—in the UK and globally. It is essential to recognise the importance of this activity, and we must understand how best to promote it. The Government recognised that in the Budget, which will help to foster the promotion of such enterprise.
It is an economic truism that economic activity never stays still and the market continues to move on. Over its long history, the Scottish economy has seen momentous changes, constantly having to reposition itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West referred to Dundee as a jute city, but no jute is left, only a museum to the former industry. We have obviously moved on and left that history behind. We have some fond memories, but also harsh memories of the conditions in which people worked.
Mr. Ross: Did my hon. Friend ever work in the jute industry?
Mr. Luke: No, I never worked in the industry. I am younger than my hon. Friend, so I missed that opportunity, though my family—certainly my father and grandmother—were employed in it at one time or another.
As I said, Dundee has had a history of change in which it has had to reposition itself to new and demanding types of production and products. My town provides a microcosm of the Scottish dimension. Globalism, the international development of the capitalist economic system, in which costs mean that labour-intensive forms of enterprise are always on the move, must be replaced by an alternative form of development. Only when enterprise, high-quality academic initiatives and proper investment are married together in conducive circumstances do mature economies such as the UK prosper and grow.
The 1998 DTI White Paper entitled "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy", made the point that the UK no longer relies on its natural resources such as coal and steel. Our competitiveness depends on our making the most of our distinct and valuable assets that competitors find it difficult to imitate. In Britain's modern economy, these distinctive assets are increasingly knowledge, skills and creativity, rather than traditional factors such as land and other natural resources.
The validity of that comment is evident in the approach adopted in Dundee and throughout Scotland, and in the success in promoting the biomedical technology industry and its contribution to the Scottish economy. That industry must he fostered, and I am sure
102WH
that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that that it is at the top of his priorities and is the Government's programme for industrial and economic regeneration in Scotland.
11.44 am
Mr. David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on introducing this topic for debate, and the hon. Members for Midlothian (David Hamilton) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on their contributions.
I do not speak for my party on Scottish matters, nor do I represent a Scottish constituency. I do, however, speak for the Liberal Democrats on science, and to a large extent we are here to celebrate a great British success story in that regard: the development of biotechnology and the science base in Scotland, and the things that flow from that. It is a great shame that the debate has coincided with the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee, because some hon. Members who would have wished to take part in this debate cannot do so.
The story of Dundee and the development of its industries is inspirational to the rest of the country. We should be clear about that. I cannot claim a huge acquaintance with Dundee. I can remember going there some years ago, when the conference of what was the Liberal party was held there. It would be fair to say that, at that time, Dundee's industries faced an uncertain future. The old idea of "jute, jam and journalism"—which owed much to its alliterative quality—as something to remember Dundee by did not clearly suggest a future. At that time, the city faced the possibility that the highest aspiration that a young person in Dundee could have was to be editor of the Beano, and that was about it.
All credit should therefore go to the people of Dundee, the local authorities involved and the universities that the city has the good fortune to have in its proximity for realising that they could invest in and develop new markets and activities. They have done extremely well, and I certainly look forward to my next opportunity to return to Dundee to see the splendid east European town hall, which we all love so well, and the progress that has been made.
As the hon. Member for Midlothian has said, this is not only about Dundee, but about what is happening in Midlothian and Glasgow, and the developments associated with the universities there. However, it is pleasing that, for once, it was not Glasgow or Edinburgh that took the lead, but another city in Scotland.
We have seen the rapid growth of the biotechnology industry to the point where it is quickly becoming the most prominent part of a growing Scottish economy. We should take note of that. Business a.m. of 26 April refers to seven gazelle companies, those companies that are leaping ahead of the pack. It says that Inverness Medical would have been the runaway, had it been classified as a Scottish company rather than an American offshoot of Johnson & Johnson. That is another example of biomedical development in Scotland. Mr. Gordon Maclennan from Scottish Enterprise Glasgow is quoted as saying that he expects biotechnology firms to make their presence felt over the next few years by filling up the gaps in the area.

103WH
The Scotsman of 25 April provides an upbeat assessment of the biotechnology industries in Scotland. It says that they have not found their growth prospects seriously damaged by the events of last year and any economic uncertainty in the global climate, and are still progressing. That is valuable. I know that the Minister will wax lyrical on the subject when he replies. He waxed lyrical the other day in response to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). He was not ashamed to proclaim the success story of biotechnology in Scotland. I do not wish to detract from that or to criticise it, but I want to put it into a United Kingdom context.
The Scottish economy is not divorced from the rest of the UK economy. We are seeing similar developments elsewhere. That is good. Cambridge, which has always been the brand leader, is developing links between its science base and industry. Similar things are happening in my area. Bath and Bristol universities are coming together to form a partnership with industry to develop biotechnologies. The hon. Member for Dundee, West used many vernacular terms to baffle the Official Report. I will not do the same with west country terms, as that would not be appreciated. The developments in the west country are to be encouraged.
The university of Ulster is doing something very similar in the different economic conditions in Northern Ireland. There is much to be said for that. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when she was the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, said:
"The fact of the matter is that we have the second-largest and most mature biotechnology sector in the world. We remain the biotechnology leader within the European Union. Three quarters of the new drugs developed in the European Union are developed here in the UK".—[Official Report, 30 November 2002;Vol.357.c.1123.]
It is important to latch on to that fact. It should drive much of government thinking and industrial thinking about where we move forward. If we do not exploit the sectors where we have clear advantages, we will find it difficult to compete on a wider UK basis. It is by no means certain that we will retain our advantages in this sector. It will need constant support from the Government and the private sector. New companies will require constant incubation as they come along and we will need a research environment that aids our predominance.
I want to focus on what we need to do to maintain the progress that has been made. The first element is the research environment. Unless we are doing leading-edge research in our universities and in the private sector research facilities, we will not maintain our leading position. That undoubtedly means that guidance needs to be given to the Higher Education Funding Councils, for both England and Scotland, to understand that investment in research in science and technology in our universities is not only innately good because it expands our knowledge base but also economically good because of its potential for spin-offs.
That is why exercises such as the research assessment exercise—on which the Science and Technology Committee recently reported—are important. When exercises are carried out to assess the value and quality of research at universities, good performance is
104WH
recognised by enhanced funding. The last research assessment exercise was disappointing because university departments achieved excellent research results but received no reward in terms of research grants for their improvements or maintenance of high standards. That is not good enough. Funds must match the performance of our centres of excellence.
Greater integration between the various research councils is needed. Medical biotechnology often cuts across various research council topics—medical, physical or whatever—and it is important to achieve cross-connections. Therefore I welcome the development over the past week of an umbrella body, Research Councils UK, which will enable that integration. I hope that we will concentrate our funding not only on scientific applications but also on blue-sky research.
It is often people pushing the envelope of scientific research that results in great advances leading to greater economic performance. We should not assume that every development must be on the basis of existing science. We must give scope for our scientists and technologists to think outside the envelope. We must ensure that the research environment is not constrained by avoidable legal problems. I do not mean that we should throw away the rule book or that there should not be an ethical dimension to legislation on biotechnology—that is important.
It is also important that this place keeps pace with the great pace of change in science, and that it is prepared to legislate when required to maintain that progress. We had excellent debates on stemcell research. Whether or not we came to the right conclusions, the arguments were sound. We must be flexible enough to recognise where problems develop as research moves forward and to react accordingly. We should take a precautionary, but not superstitious, approach to the development of science.
The Scottish experience in the business environment has lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom. The development of the Scottish Enterprise biotechnology group and support systems such as the biotech business mentors programme, the Enterprise fellowship programme and the Proof of Concept fund, are positive ways of supporting people in the industry and helping them believe that there is an active environment in which they can develop.
I particularly like the frame of mind displayed by Scottish Development International's pronouncements on its website that
"the Medicines Control Agency …and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, is based in London, which is one hour's flying time from central Scotland."
That is exactly the right focus. I add that it is three hours' driving time or a bad train journey from my part of the world.
Mr. Luke: Will the hon. Gentleman also recognise the good air links between Dundee and the rest of the UK that I believe have made so much difference in bringing renowned scientists to Dundee and promoting biomedical technology?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. Infrastructure is crucial, as is the rest of the business environment, and I welcome the research and development tax credits that the Chancellor announced in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, according to the firms that are engaged in the business, the Chancellor has got it 95 per cent. right. If we could say that about everything that the Chancellor says and does, I would be a much happier man. Well done on that, and well done if the Government are prepared to support changes in patent law to ensure that it is consistent with scientific research. The one problem—as with all manufacturing industries—is the exchange rate and the effect that it has on the competitiveness of British biotechnology firms, but I hope that that will eventually be addressed.
There are two more components that I want to talk about. One is direct investment. I do not want to say much about that, but I welcome increases in the science budget. They are insufficient and I do not believe that they will be widely disseminated, but let us welcome them.
It is desperately important that we give higher education every opportunity to engage with local industry, to develop the sort of links that we see in Scotland throughout the United Kingdom. We give higher education the opportunity to train the top scientists of the future. I note that Scotland makes up 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, but produces 17 per cent. of all UK biotechnology-related PhDs, and 17 per cent. of the UK's graduates in first degrees in medicine and industry. That is a marvellous record. I should like to see it extended to the rest of the country, and it is something to which those who are responsible for education within England and Wales should aspire.
Finally, we must not neglect the teaching of science within the schools that provide the people who will work in the industries. At present, we are deficient in that area. British children—under the Scottish, English and Welsh education systems—are not sufficiently attracted into the sciences. We need to address that problem urgently.
David Hamilton: With your experience in the sciences, do you accept my earlier point about academia and business? There is a division within Britain that I did not see in the USA. We are educating people, bringing them through the universities and colleges—we are doing that in Midlothian and it is now part of the curriculum—but people in academia are holding back and not wanting to expand on the information that they have. On the other side, the business community is trying desperately to fund packages, but the information technology that we want to achieve is not there.
Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) used the expression "you". That refers to me. As it happens, I have experience of the sciences, but I am not taking part in the debate.
Mr. Heath: I must not take part in the debate for much longer, other than to say that I think that the
106WH
hon. Member for Midlothian is on to a good point, on which I hope the Minister will be able to expand. We should not be complacent about what we have achieved. We have competitors who are well placed to take markets from us, particularly the USA, which has a critical mass that we simply cannot match. That means that we have to be even more active, even more productive, and even more enterprising in our approach to science and biomedical industries. I believe that we have the capacity to do that and I hope that the Government will support it every inch of the way.
11.58 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure to listen to all the contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on securing the debate. I lived in his constituency and worked in the jute industry in the late 1960s, a period which saw the demise of the industry. I worked for Jute Industries Ltd., which moved into North sea oil—the cutting edge of technology at the time. As everybody has said, Dundee and Scotland have always been at the cutting edge of invention. Life moves on and, with sadness, we have seen the end of the jute industry. Also, with sadness in a sense, we regard the oil industry as mature, not a state-of-the-art industry. Dundee is now sharing in the new industries that come from the research base, which has always been one of Scotland's strengths. For many hundreds of years, there were more universities in Scotland than in England, and we have seen the fruits of that endeavour.
I congratulate all who are involved in the Dundee Project for grasping what faced them in the 1980s and for making such a success of it. We must recognise that when big decisions are made, it takes a long time for the payback to come. We are now seeing the benefits of what people did 20 years earlier. Such a message is spreading more widely throughout the United Kingdom and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right to point that out.
The Government recently announced that there is to be a new high-tech university—based on the regenerative ability of a new university—in my former constituency of Hastings and Rye. I hope that Mr. Lonsdale can be tracked down and congratulated on behalf of us all. The effect of his decision that Ninewells should work with Dundee university and Abertay has come not to a satisfactory conclusion because I expect those industries to move on, but has progressed satisfactorily.
It is interesting to see how the change from emphasis on manufacturing is now being accepted throughout Scotland and is moving to the knowledge-based economy and the effect that that has on developing a sophisticated economy. I congratulate everyone who takes part. I should be happy to take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) to visit some industries in Dundee. After the debate has finished, perhaps he would give me some contact names. It is one of my objectives to visit as many industries as possible. I have already visited several throughout the rest of Scotland.
Hon. Members have talked about the need for the universities not only to compete with one another in Scotland, but to co-operate. The hon. Member for

107WH
Midlothian (David Hamilton) drew on his experience of the United States. If we are thinking competitively, we need to think of competing with MIT. It is with encouragement that I note that my old university, Strathclyde university, competes and co-operates with Glasgow university. I am sure that Dundee university does the same with Abertay university. I am also conscious that Aberdeen university has the same partnership with Robert Gordon university, and I cannot believe that Edinburgh university does not co-operate with Heriot-Watt university. It is the best way in which to create the critical mass that we need to move forward and to be more widely recognised as one of the world's leaders in the new knowledge-based industries.
As has been mentioned, we must make sure that we receive back-up. The hon. Member for Midlothian made cogent points about how business and academia in the United States have learned to co-operate in a way that we are having difficulty in developing in the United Kingdom. Having spoken to people who are active in the venture capital market in Scotland, I understand that while there is a willingness to invest in the new industries, some packages that are offered to inventors to encourage them to move into companies are not as sophisticated as in other places. Someone who is developing a company can be called on to put their house and their pension on the line, whereas other venture capitalists south of the border are developing much more sophisticated help packages so that there is not the same threat if something goes wrong. We need to take away some of the risks from our inventors who, let us face it, are not rounded business people. They need reassurance to encourage them to continue to invent new products and ideas. There continues to be a need for sophisticated packages of venture capital aid to encourage yet more people into the business world.
We are also conscious that although many universities are developing incubator companies and science parks, growing businesses and working closely with established businesses, there is wariness about whether that is the right way forward. Had I not been speaking in the debate, I would have attended the open day at the Hunter centre for entrepreneurship at Strathclyde university. The centre is encouraging people from the academic body who have ideas to make presentations to an audience of people who can help to develop those ideas. It is difficult for inventors to realise that to get a product to market, one needs the advice of experts in marketing, as well as accountants and lawyers, who can ensure that intellectual property as well as company formation is properly established.
The idea behind the open day is to get people to move forward towards the market. As it is my old university, I beg leave to bang its drum a little. I believe that the school of entrepreneurship is unique—in the world, not only the United Kingdom—in managing to marry up undergraduate degrees with entrepreneurial classes. As people leave university—with degrees rather than PhDs—they have an understanding of business and how to move products forward into the marketplace.
From small acorns grow the great oaks of academic powerhouses such as the MIT. That is what we should be aiming for. Dare I utter this heresy, but we should consider bypassing Cambridge and moving into a
108WH
worldwide competitive arena. We must ensure that business, the universities and government in all their various forms work towards that end.
We must also ensure critical mass. Indeed, as the hon. Members for Dundee, West, and for Dundee, East both said, Dundee has probably already achieved that. Employees come to Dundee to be in the company of people with the same intellectual interests and ability. People can be hired from that mass to ensure that companies, in which people can move around easily, can grow and develop. These people are in many instances home grown, and we must ensure that others can come in easily from abroad. I hope that the Government will make it as easy as possible for people to get the necessary permissions to come in to contribute to the Scottish economy. That is crucial to its future development and success.
There are also broader areas of concern. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the regulatory environment. Having worked in the chemical industry, I am conscious of how quickly regulation that is developed to meet a particular situation throws into question previous regulation. We are not sufficiently adept at European Union level from where most regulation stems. We are in a global market, and it could be argued that a world body such as the World Trade Organisation should create the regulatory environment rather than Europe, but that is the subject of another debate. We must ensure that that environment can create modern regulation and that old and conflicting regulation is dropped and done away with. It is always a problem to make sure that that happens, because people are comfortable with old, established regulations. It is difficult to move on, and we Members of Parliament need to be well aware of that problem.
The use of animals in development is a controversial issue. We do not dare back away from it; we must address it. I was glad that the Government stood up for Huntingdon Life Sciences in the end. We must ensure that businesses that need to use animals do so in the most effective way, and that there are tight controls over the way that animals are used. However, we should recognise that there is need for such use from time to time. Science moves on, and many of the old tests have been replaced by more modern and less invasive techniques. In some cases, the use of animals has been done away with altogether. However, we must allow animals to be used when that is required.
We must broadly consider other potential impediments to development. What is likely to impede future development? I have talked about the critical mass of scientists and inventors. We also need to consider whether there are any external drawbacks, and whether factors such as the higher cost of regulation and business taxes will have a detrimental effect on those starting up businesses or investing in incubating businesses.
There is a new research and development tax credit, but we must ask whether it is outweighed by the other costs put on business. In Scotland, the business rate is 9 per cent. higher than in England. These issues matter at the margin—and beyond, when things get too far out of hand. If the Government stop people from investing, matters should be reviewed.

109WH
I am delighted to have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, West on securing it. I am sorry that the Scottish Grand Committee is sitting now; I am sure that he would have liked to have heard more contributions from other hon. Members from Scotland. It is worth mentioning in passing that I do not see any members of the Scottish National party here. One would have hoped they would be prepared to contribute to a debate on the future prosperity of Scotland.
12.13 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I also join in giving hearty congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on initiating the debate. It is appropriate that we have had a lively and extremely well informed debate on a subject that is important to Scotland and the United Kingdom.
I welcome the generous remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who says that we are celebrating a success story for Scotland and the United Kingdom. Perhaps that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who asked why Members of the Scottish National party are not present. Notwithstanding the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, I would have thought that the SNP could have managed for one of its five Members of Parliament to come along.
Biomedical research industries in Scotland are a success story, but the SNP does not like that; it does not fit into its political agenda of talking down Scotland and pretending that everything in Scotland is bad. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the Business a.m. gazelle awards, which I had the privilege of presenting. It is remarkable that in Scotland there are 280 "gazelles", or companies with phenomenal 100 per cent. growth.
I congratulate and commend my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West and for Dundee, East. I visited Dundee twice recently and on each occasion had a fantastic welcome. I was greatly impressed by how the city is responding to the challenges of the 21st century, in not only this respect but others, too.
I was also impressed by how my hon. Friends are representing their constituents so well and so assiduously, and are quietly and effectively supporting innovation and new job opportunities, not only in this sector but in many others. It is not always the person who shouts the loudest and gets the biggest headline and their picture in the newspaper who is the most effective Member in Parliament.
The topic is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. Tayside benefits particularly from the industry's presence, as I shall discuss in more detail in a moment. I shall not cite the impressive statistics that both my hon. Friends mentioned on jobs and investment in the area.
Dundee, in particular, and the technology park, share the success in Scotland in biomedical research in the commercial sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West mentioned Cyclacel and Axis-Shield, but there are others, and both Dundee and Abertay universities have excellent records in the biomedical and biotechnology fields. I speak as a graduate of Edinburgh
110Wh
university, and if a Strathclyde graduate and an Edinburgh graduate praise both universities in Dundee, it must be true.
The biomedical research centre is part of the medical faculty at Dundee, and was set up in 1992 at Ninewells hospital medical school laboratory block. It aims to provide a focus of excellence in biomedical research. The level of excellence attained was underlined by The Guardian's assessment of the top 100 UK universities in 2000, which placed Dundee second in the entire UK in the table for biosciences. That is a tremendous record.
Abertay, the newer but equally effective university, which I had the pleasure of visiting on Monday, was praised last month by the network director of Scottish Enterprise's biotechnology group. Almost 15 years ago, Abertay offered Scotland's first degree in biotechnology, from drug design to food and drink manufacture. It now boasts innovative and progressive courses.
The two universities are extremely effective, and I can confirm that they are working together. The expertise in biotechnical research at Dundee is world renowned and is fuelling the engine room of the industries in the Tayside region as a whole. Indeed, Dundee is now home to 25 per cent. of Scotland's biotechnology companies.
I am confident that, given continued support and encouragement of the right sort, growth will continue. Biotechnology offers huge opportunities. Following the publication of the map of the human genome—as some will know, John Sulston received the Robert Burns humanitarian award at Culzean Castle, at an event that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) and I attended last Friday—there are huge opportunities for wealth creation, high-quality jobs and improving the quality of life. The UK has the leading biotechnology industry in Europe. I shall discuss later the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton).
Scotland is making inroads and grasping the vast opportunity that biotechnology offers. Industry, academia, the enterprise networks and the Scottish Executive must all play their part, individually and collectively, if we want to ensure that we do not lose our position as a potential market leader and allow others to exploit that opportunity.
The commercial and social benefits of biosciences are enormous. Genomics can be harnessed to develop radical new treatments for previously intractable diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and cancer, for which we have sought treatment for so many years. That is why it is vital. It also supports novel developments to improve the environment. Therefore, Scotland is well-established in this regard, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome generously said.
With just under 9 per cent. of the UK population, Scotland wins 12 per cent. of total UK funding for research, 13 per cent. of research councils' resources for research, 13 per cent. of the Government research departments' resources for research, and 12 per cent. of the EU research resources that are spent in the UK. Therefore, we are getting more than our fair share, and rightly so. The per capita income from research grants and contracts in Scotland is also higher than in other parts of the UK.

111 WH
Scotland produces 1 per cent. of all the research publications in the world; in that regard, it ranks third in the world per head of population. Scotland has the highest concentration of biotechnology provision in Europe; 18 per cent. of all UK biotechnology-related PhDs are awarded in Scotland.
We are not complacent. We can and we should do more; we should build on this foundation. However, we should also recognise and acknowledge what has been achieved so far, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said.
The infrastructure is in place to develop the potential. We have several science parks—the West of Scotland science park, the Pentlands science park, the Stirling university innovation park, the Dundee medipark, and the Aberdeen science and technology park, which I had the privilege of visiting.
In his eloquent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian mentioned the growing potential in Midlothian. He referred to plans to develop the manufacturing facility at the newly created national biomanufacturing centre at Gowkley Moss in Midlothian—these centres always have strange names. That is where PPL Therapeutics—which harnessed the Dolly technology to create the life-enhancing drug AAT for the treatment of cystic fibrosis—will construct its £42 million manufacturing facility, so it is a very important development.
In these parks, we can find some of the sector's globally-recognised companies: Cyclacel, which has been mentioned, is developing important cancer therapies; PPL Therapeutics is developing proteins to fight diseases such as pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis; Pantherix is developing anti-infective therapies and antibiotics; Axa-Shield is producing a kit that predicts heart attacks, which is very important for those of us who are moving on in years; other companies are also producing various diagnostic kits, and others are developing medical devices and heart valves. All of those are important areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian rightly averred that it is easier to raise finance for biotechnology in the USA than it is in the UK. Finance for biotechnology in the UK is a major issue, as we know. There is concern that the European drive in biotechnology will help other countries, such as Germany, to overtake the UK as the leading biotechnology industry centres in Europe. We are determined that that will not happen—in particular, by building on Scotland's lead.
Currently, the UK leads Europe in biotechnology, and Scotland's science base is second to none. Entrepreneurship is booming. The venture capital industry has stimulated more start-ups—in particular specialised biotechnology start-ups—than anywhere else. That is a good sign.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly mentioned, Scottish Enterprise has identified biotechnology as a key economic development driver, and it has implemented a £40 million biotechnology cluster action plan, which it launched in November 1999.
112WH
It is significant that the framework for action that Scottish Enterprise announced in 1999 has already been substantially achieved well ahead of schedule. In September 2001, employment in the sector was 24,406—above the 24,000 target that was set in 1999. There were 86 biotechnology companies, and 291 support and supply companies—we had anticipated 290. Allowing for possible mergers, we are almost on target already, and are well ahead of the target date.
On international co-operation, there are interesting collaborations such as the Scotland-Maryland biotechnology alliance, which was launched at Bio 2000 and signed in Edinburgh in August 2001. Scottish Enterprise and the Maryland science alliance are working together to stimulate further growth in our biotechnology industries through a series of activities over the next two years. A 27-strong trade mission from Maryland, which included 10 biotechnology companies and three universities, visited in August. As a result of the initiative, four Scottish companies have already secured deals with their Maryland counterparts that are worth more than £1.5 million. I want to see more such collaboration between Scotland and the United States. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, we can learn much from it.
We accept that there is a continuing need to boost industry's investment in research in Scotland. Scottish industry invests only 0.5 per cent. of its gross domestic product on research and development. That is half that of the UK, a third of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and less than a fifth of Sweden's. The Government are determined to help. In the 2002 Budget, UK tax credits for small business research and development were extended to include large businesses, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned. That will encourage investment in the biotechnological and biomedical industries.
The Scottish Executive's science strategy for Scotland identified bioscience, genomics and medical research as priority areas. The aims are to build critical mass, improve performance, and strengthen local and international networks. The Government and the Scottish Executive will work in partnership: the Government will provide the funding and the Executive will provide their science strategy. The Government have also delivered the programme Bio-wise, which is led by the Department for Trade and Industry, to encourage industry uptake of biotechnology. They also introduced the £750 million joint infrastructure fund to update the science and research-base infrastructure, from which Scotland benefited by about £65 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian also talked about bridging the gap between academia and industry, which is what Scottish Biomedical exists to do. It delivers milestone-driven research projects on behalf of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies by matching the needs of business with the skills, expertise and technologies of research departments of the universities of Scotland. A prime example of that success was the —5.2 million deal with Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. of Japan, the result of which was the state-of-the-art Kyorin-Scotland research laboratory in the West of Scotland science park. The formula "research plus business plus infrastructure" equals success.

113WH
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend that more needs to be done if the UK is to continue to lead in Europe and to catch up with the United States. I will meet the BioIndustry Association in the next few weeks to discuss that. More needs to be done to keep Scotland ahead of the field. Commercialisation is just the start. We must nurture and go for growth. Growth needs different measures, such as the Executive's refocusing of regional selective assistance. We must focus on growing indigenous Scottish firms such as those in our biomedical and biotechnology sector. Access to finance is also key. Ernst & Young noted that Scottish Enterprise's framework for action identified that two of Europe's three largest venture capital investments were in Scottish biotechnology companies.
Biomedical research and industry in the wider biotechnology sector already have a key role in the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend says that the Government should play a key part. I assure him and the Chamber that the Government have played their part and will continue to do so. Through partnership and sensible devolution, the Scottish Executive and British Government are working together on a commitment to fuel a knowledge-based economy based on excellence in research and innovation, delivering high growth and high quality jobs for a highly skilled work force. That is the way forward for Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Lottery Grants (Gloucestershire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to secure this debate and thank the Minister for attending. I am listed to discuss lottery grants in Gloucestershire and, indeed, I want to do so, but I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making particular reference to my constituency of Tewkesbury, as we have lost out considerably in the distribution of such grants.
I held a debate on 20 December 2000 to discuss this issue. I met the then Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was helpful. Since then, in spite of her gallant efforts, nothing seems to have improved for my constituency. I discovered at the time that organisations from Tewkesbury were applying for just as many grants as those from other constituencies and for as much money, but they were being turned down.
There are six parliamentary seats in Gloucestershire, and Tewkesbury applied for about one sixth of the money, which was right. We played the lottery as much as the other constituencies. One sixth is about 17 per cent, yet we received less than three per cent of the money coming to the county. That did not seem right.
The Minister and I discussed a number of the failed bids in detail. I was assured that the Government were considering improving the processing of applications and the way in which help might be given to applicants at early stages. Despite that, there has been no change in the amount of lottery grant coming to my area. Since the lottery's inception in 1994, organisations in Gloucestershire as a whole have received £83.7 million, yet only £2.9 million—3.4 per cent—has found its way to Tewkesbury. If we divide Gloucestershire roughly into six, we should have 17 per cent of the money, equating to about £14.2 million. Coincidentally, that is the national average for lottery grants to constituencies. We are nowhere near that figure.
To put the problem in perspective, neighbouring Gloucester has received £28.7 million and Cotswold has received £20.2 million. I do not begrudge those areas their money—if they have made applications and been given grants, good luck to them. It seems odd, however, that compared with £28.7 million and £20.2 million Tewkesbury receives less than £3 million. I wonder why.
When I looked into the matter, met the Minister, held a debate and discussed the problem with one or two heads of the departments distributing lottery money, one of the criteria given for distribution was deprivation. That is not a good measure. What does deprived mean? Does it mean that it is a poor area, or that there are few facilities or amenities? I mentioned that Cotswold has received £20 million in lottery grants. One could hardly describe it as deprived, yet it received seven times as much money as Tewkesbury. I stress that I do not begrudge Cotswold its money, but I would rather see a fairer share come to Tewkesbury.
If the word "deprived" means poor, many better-off areas have pockets of deprivation, but because of the way the calculations are made they are not recognised, particularly if those pockets straddle two electoral wards. Deprived may mean few facilities, but many

115WH
wealthy areas have no amenities. Some well-off villages do not have a single shop—are they deprived? What exactly do we mean by deprived?
The calculation based on deprivation tends to centre on inner cities and towns. As I have asked before, what about rural poverty? I highlighted that in my last speech, but since then the situation in the countryside has got worse. Farming incomes have fallen further and foot and mouth has devastated the rural scene. I am pleased that the Minister is replying to this debate because he is also the Minister for Sport, and he may know that the Cheltenham race course is in my constituency. We lost the Cheltenham racing festival last year. That hit my area hard and should be taken into account in debating deprivation and the allocation and distribution of lottery grants.
I do not want to go too far into this subject, but my area, given its dependence on the racing industry and the national hunt race course, will be hit hard if the Government decide to ban hunting. I say that as someone who does not hunt, but the Government should be aware of that problem. I am sure that I will be called to order if I go any further down that road. In those circumstances, from where would the compensation come for my constituency? Would it come from lottery grants, or because of the way that it is calculated, would we continue to slip through the net?
The perception is that Tewkesbury is well off, but that is not true. It is not poor, but it is certainly not wealthy. Like many other areas, it has problems with drug pushers, drug users and people who commit crimes because they are taking drugs. It has a town—Tewkesbury itself—that needs regeneration because there are many empty shops. It is a wonderful place to visit, but it needs some help. Other areas have few facilities and the constituency also suffers from having excessive housebuilding requirements forced on it. It is all right to build houses, but that does not create a community. We must keep those people in the area to create a community, but if the lottery grants do not help the projects, that creates a further problem.
The south-west is generally not that well off. It is poorly served by the railway network, although many constituencies could claim that, and it loses out on funding for services such as education, health, policing and local government. In recognition of the unequal lottery distribution, the Government introduced a system for fairer distribution and identified 51 areas for targeting. Again, the criteria were that the areas had to be deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country. So far so good, but of those 51 areas, 50 had received more money than Tewkesbury. As I said, we have received less than £3 million, while Brent, which was targeted for more money, has received £138 million. Portsmouth received £63 million. My home town of Bolton, about which I can claim to know a little, received £34 million, while Blackpool received £8.3 million—is it deprived? There are other figures: Doncaster received £61 million, Oldham £16 million, and Kirklees £35 million. Some of those areas may have bigger populations, but even if we multiple Tewkesbury's population proportionally, we do not get anywhere near comparable figures. However, those
116WH
areas are targeted under what is called the English fair share initiative. Where is the fairness and how will things improve for my constituency?
Organisations in Tewkesbury have made many good applications and I have seen some in detail recently. There was an application to make improvements to the famous Tewkesbury abbey, one to upgrade the Bishop's Cleeve tithe barn and many other examples that I could mention. However, all were turned down and, despite promises, the area remains poorly funded in terms of lottery money. Indeed, Gloucestershire comes sixth out of six in terms of total funding. If we break that down into the six categories, it is bottom of the list in four, and fifth out of six in the remaining two, so we lose out in every which way.
Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer my questions; I certainly intend to leave him enough time to do so. What about the merits of individual applications? How are decisions about the applications weighted and made? What is meant by "deprivation"? How is it calculated and how big an area in each constituency is measured? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to review that criterion as a means of deciding which areas should benefit from lottery funding. Why is the distribution of lottery money across the country still so unequal? I have given examples. Why does my constituency keep losing out so badly?
The national lottery was started in 1994 with the objective of helping projects that would benefit the community. It was a way of helping those projects without calling on taxation, which might be inappropriate. The lottery was set up not to supplement taxation, but as an alternative way of raising funds so that community projects could benefit.
The lottery has had much success in a number of areas. The one or two projects that have benefited in Tewkesbury have been tremendously successful, but there have not been that many of them. This is the second time that I have raised the issue in the House of Commons and I do not intend to let it slip because a number of organisations in Tewkesbury are pressing me to ask why we do not get our fair share.
12.41 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing the debate. I know his constituency reasonably well. Indeed, we met at the Cheltenham gold cup, when I backed the winner. I am sure that he appreciates that Cheltenham, like all horseracing towns, has backed a winner in that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided help for the racing industry.
Since 1994, the national lottery has become one of the most successful lotteries in the world. We must acknowledge that, because sometimes in these debates we miss the bigger picture. It has raised about £12 billion and 100,000 lottery awards have been made. By those standards, it is a great success, which we should recognise and celebrate. We should also recognise that every part of the country has benefited in some way from lottery funding. However, some parts appear to have benefited rather more than others and the hon. Gentleman has initiated the debate to ask questions about his constituency.

117WH
We wanted to make changes so that people had confidence that lottery money was spread fairly throughout the country and different groups in our society. We wanted decisions on individual grants to be made closer to the area where the money would be spent and for it to be distributed according to need. We wanted to shift the emphasis from capital expenditure on buildings to spending on people and activities. In the first couple of years after the lottery was conceived, we probably went down the road of capital schemes a little more than was advisable, but we have gone through a learning curve and I think that there is consensus among parties in the House on that. We have reviewed the situation and taken those points on board.
The National Lottery Act 1998 and the new policy directions for distributors set out a broad network that reflected those changes. Lottery distributors take decisions on individual grants within the framework, while retaining the independence that is a fundamental principle of the lottery. Distributors now have more flexibility in the way that they distribute money to good causes. They can delegate decisions within their organisations to a more local level and to outside organisations, which is happening. They can pool funds and work together on joint schemes more easily than before. They must produce strategic plans that reflect the needs of their sector and provide proposals for addressing them.
The 1998 legislation also introduced a new lottery distributor, the new opportunities fund, to fund new initiatives in the areas that concern people most. According to a MORI poll that we commissioned, those areas are health, education and the environment. It also introduced a new scheme, Awards for All, which allows distributors to work together to provide a one-stop shop for grants of up to £5,000 to community groups. The latter has been particularly successful and overall the number of small grants under £5,000 to community groups has trebled. Earlier this year, we introduced the fair share initiative, which is designed to tackle inequity in lottery funding in deprived areas. Overall, 62 areas were chosen for fair share funding based on a methodology that evaluated areas according to levels of deprivation and the amount of lottery funding already received. That initiative is worth £169 million.
Fair share is just one of several targeted initiatives operated by the lottery distributors and the Government are committed to ensuring that all areas of the UK benefit from lottery funding. More generally, since 1998 the percentage of revenue funding awarded—the big argument in the early years of the lottery was about capital, not revenue—has increased from 9 per cent. to 31per cent., and 41 per cent. of all grants made so far have gone to the 50 most deprived local authorities. Many distributors now also delegate decisions on funding. For example, the heritage lottery fund established nine committees in the English regions to make decisions on applications between £50,000 and £1 million. Decisions about arts projects below £100,000 are made at regional level. It must be right that decisions about funding are made at the most local level.
The quality, efficiency and standards unit—QUEST—report, published in August 2000, made a number of recommendations for improving application and assessment procedures to ease the administrative burden for smaller groups applying for grants. It
118WH
recommended that we put in a hot line so that there could be contact at a one-stop shop. That has been successful. There have been nearly 8,000 inquiries to date. It has been an extremely popular way of contacting the lottery and getting information without being bounced from one distributor to another. The service provides basic information about the types of grant available and contact details for the relevant distributor from a single phone number.
Lottery distributors have also established a lottery website, which also provides basic information and links to relevant sites. The site averages more than 6,000 hits each month. Distributors are simplifying application procedures for smaller grants. That has been welcomed. The heritage lottery fund has introduced a simple application form for capital grants under £50,000 and in April 2001 the community fund launched a new grants programme for awards between £500 and £60,000, based closely on the Awards for All programme, with a short, simple application form and a quick turnaround time.
The hon. Gentleman asked why some applications were being turned down. Distributors are working jointly to produce common minimum standards for feedback and appeals to ensure that unsuccessful applicants are given helpful and detailed information on why their applications failed and to increase consistency between distributors on how appeals are handled. That is important for the integrity of the lottery. In spite of those very real changes, it is clear that some areas still do rather better than others. I make no apology for our decision to target some lottery funding, via the fair share initiative, on those areas that are both the most deprived and have historically done badly from the lottery.
That initiative is not a panacea for all ills, however, and it does not address the issues of those areas, which, while they may not be classed as deprived, still rightly want to win lottery funding for worthwhile projects in their communities. It is frustrating when a constituency does not do as well as its neighbours—that has been graphically illustrated today—particularly when one knows from personal experience how worth while the applications are. However, it is important to look not only at the individual constituencies, but at the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman referred to Gloucestershire, which is made up of six constituencies, some of which have done better from the lottery than others. Indeed, Gloucester is top of the league. It has received average lottery funding of £285 per capita. At the other end of the scale, which the hon. Gentleman illustrated graphically, the figure for Tewkesbury is £35 per capita.
We need to be careful when we interpret statistics. Large towns and cities often attract lottery funding for large capital projects because they have the infrastructure and necessary support needed to secure funding—big stadiums or concert halls. We see that up and down the country. The hon. Gentleman knows that Gloucester leisure centre is a good example. It is in Gloucester, but many people in the surrounding area have benefited from it.
Often, a scheme to be delivered across an area will be based for administration purposes in a single location. For example, Gloucestershire local education authority is based in Gloucester. It has received £2 million to fund

119WH
technology training for teachers and librarians throughout the county, so Tewkesbury will gain from that.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic approach. I believe he would agree that it is all right to spend money in inner cities, but people then have to travel to those areas. The town of Tewkesbury needs regenerating or there will be serious problems and we will waste a jewel of a place, but it has had applications turned down.
In order for people in Tewkesbury to benefit from something in Gloucester they have to travel by car. I was privileged to take part in the debate on communities initiated by the Government a couple of weeks ago. It is essential to keep people in the areas where they live for part of their leisure time if we are to build up communities.
Mr. Caborn: I take that point on board. The community fund is revisiting these issues—as we do continually—and announcing a rural initiative to help deprived rural communities that have received lower lottery funding than others. That is also the coalfield communities approach. We may consider Tewkesbury in that context.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out differences between Gloucestershire and Tewkesbury and other areas. Tewkesbury has received 116 awards, around the same number as Cheltenham, but Cheltenham's average fund per capita is around £166, much higher than Tewkesbury's £35. The other five Gloucestershire constituencies have all received funding well above the median level of £84 per capita. Tewkesbury sees fewer awards than most of its neighbours and those awards are for lower amounts. Those discrepancies appear in the calculations given by the hon. Gentleman.
It is not always easy to see the disparity from the bald figures, although we can bandy statistics around. Perhaps Tewkesbury does not make as many applications as other constituencies. Applications to the community fund from Tewkesbury are certainly lower. However, when they are made, they have a higher strike rate—44 per cent of Tewkesbury's applications to the community fund have succeeded, which is a better success rate than any of its neighbours except Forest of Dean. Voluntary community organisations in Tewkesbury may not be as experienced in applying for lottery funding as those in neighbouring areas. They say that nothing breeds success like success. One might want to consider that with regard to Tewkesbury.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his advice on community fund
120WH
applications. At the time of the previous debate, it was easier to obtain figures from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the number of applications that were made, but I am told that it does not have that information now. At that time, applications from organisations in Tewkesbury were just as frequent and as many as those from other constituencies in Gloucestershire, and we asked for as much money as they did.
Mr. Caborn: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware that Tewkesbury borough council has now met the community fund to discuss those issues and how they can be addressed. He raised a genuine worry and it is one that we have to bottom, whatever the reasons for it may be. Clearly, the borough council has an important role to play in building up the capacity of Tewkesbury to increase successful applications, and that shows that it takes its role seriously. I will request a progress report on the meetings that have taken place to ascertain whether there are deficiencies, wherever they may lie, and whether we can address them. There are major discrepancies and I would like that bottomed. Once that analysis has been carried out, we can start to deal with the matter.
The Tewkesbury problem is not uncommon. Several constituencies are not as successful at winning lottery funds as they should be. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there are no quick fixes. Since the inception of the lottery, we have tried to move from big capital schemes and have focused on revenue. We have devolved that power into the regions in respect of some distributors. We are trying to bring decision making nearer to the point at which it applies and feeding in local knowledge. I am sure that that can be achieved. Decision making is thus more informed and effective and people will appreciate that.
The Tewkesbury problem may not fit into any of those categories. As I have said, we will consider the discussions with the community fund. I will ask for a report and write to the hon. Gentleman about it. Constituents may have other issues of a similar nature that we shall also need to address.
The lottery is an evolving financial instrument. It has all-party support throughout the House and we want it to be effective and successful. If there are specific problems, we will try to deal with them, but we have to do that in the totality of the funding regime and the way that the House has constructed the lottery. Nevertheless, I will take the matter on board and will write to the hon. Gentleman about the discussions that have been taking place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. We thank the Minister for his reply. Although it is a little early, we can move straight on to the next debate.

Sexually Transmitted Infections
12.58 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am pleased to have secured this debate on such an important subject, although I would rather not have had to do so. In February, the British Medical Association published a report entitled "Sexually Transmitted Infections". It brought together an up-to-date summary of the situation with the most common sexually transmitted infections—STIs—in the United Kingdom. The information in the report was not new, but it was shocking. The number of new episodes of acute STIs diagnosed in genito-urinary medicine clinics in England, Wales and Northern Ireland rose from 887,760 in 1995 to 1,185,285 in 2000.
To give a couple of examples from that report, uncomplicated gonorrhoea increased by 31 per cent. in males and 26 per cent. in females between 1999 and 2000. Diagnoses of chlamydia have risen dramatically since 1993. Between 1999 and 2000, cases rose by 20 per cent. in males and 17 per cent. in females. It is accepted that the increase in diagnoses is as likely to be the result of increased testing and awareness as it is of increased transmission. However, the report further stated the sustained rise in diagnosis of acute STIs in the past six years, which is probably attributable to the increasing practice of unsafe sexual behaviour, especially in young heterosexuals and gay and bisexual men. The increase in the numbers of STIs is worrying and it is important that something is done, because having a STI is damaging.
The dangers of unprotected sex, such as the possibility of pregnancy and other problems, are well known, although apparently not by young women and young gay or bisexual men. Informal surveys suggest that many of them think that such issues simply do not apply to them—they do not feel at risk. However, there are further dangers from unprotected sex. If left untreated, either because of ignorance or because the infection is asymptomatic, as is often the case with chlamydia, those infected risk damage to their fertility or even death through ectopic pregnancy or other complications.
What information do we have about the problem? A study of 3,860 sexually active women in the United States attending sexual health clinics, family planning clinics or school health centres—women who, because of their attendance at such establishments, are more likely to look after their own health—found that, over a 33-month period, 31.2 per cent. of those under 25 were infected with chlamydia, compared with 9.6 per cent. of those over the age of 25. Worse, the majority of those cases were asymptomatic and the women concerned simply did not know that they had the disease.
On the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust's good website at www.ectopic.org. it states that
"a pilot study that has been carried out,"
suggests that
"10% of sexually active people under 25 are infected. It is probable that at least one third to half the population now in their forties will have had it at some time."
Since chlamydia is so widespread, one might think that infection would be accepted as one of the risks of being sexually active and that people would get
122WH
regularly checked. Sadly, a survey of women in Scotland with a current or recent diagnosis of chlamydia found that most women thought that STIs were not relevant to them. The diagnosis came as a shock. The women felt that there was a stigma attached to attending the GUM clinic and found it extremely difficult to disclose their infection to current and previous partners. Evidence suggests that, the younger the woman is, the less confidence she will have about making a disclosure of infection and discussing it with current and previous partners. Such stigma is likely to promote the spread of STIs such as chlamydia.
The problems highlighted by the survey are worse when considered in the context of a recent survey carried out by PatientView, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the British HIV Association, which asked 100 consultants about the treatment of patients in GUM clinics. It found that more than 40 per cent. of people needing sexual health appointments had to wait more than a week to be seen and that more than one in 10 have to wait longer than a fortnight. That is worrying in the light of evidence suggesting that the longer patients wait for an appointment, the less likely they are to turn up. Thus, infections are likely to spread.
In my constituency of Reading, for obvious reasons it is almost impossible to acquire figures on the number of people having unprotected sex. To get some idea one needs to examine evidence that might provide a clue as to the nature of the problem. The dangers of unprotected sex for young women in Reading are real and present. The area covered by Reading borough council has the sixth highest number of teenage pregnancies in the south-east. Between 1996 and 1998, there were 107 conceptions in young women under the age of 16, which is almost double the average of 57 conceptions for Berkshire. For under-18-year-olds, Reading borough council's area has a conception rate of 436 compared with a Berkshire average of 280. When the survey considered the conception rate per 1,000 of people aged 15 to 17 in the same period, it was 62.5—the highest in the south-east. That is a worrying statistic for my constituency.
There is a part of Reading, which I shall not name, that sends pupils to a popular and well-respected secondary school in my constituency. One in eight young women in that area will become pregnant. I remember that when I was at school a long time ago—in the late 1960s—a girl in my year became pregnant and left school as a result. There was quite a scandal and fuss. According to the statistics, of the pupils attending that school in my constituency, three a year will fall pregnant. That is evidence that much unprotected sex is taking place in Reading. That is worrying for our public health.
I am grateful for information from Dr. Alan Tang of the Florey unit, which is the genito-urinary clinic in the Royal Berkshire hospital in my constituency. It has a waiting time of two weeks for a routine referral and a week for urgent cases. People at the unit think that that is too long. Those waiting times measure the period from a referral to a diagnosis, or possible diagnosis. They completely leave out of the picture those who did not appear at the clinic or did not know how to represent their symptoms so that the urgency or otherwise of their case could be determined. It is thought at the Florey unit that chlamydia, HIV and other STIs are increasing at the same rate as in London.

123WH
In Reading, the greatest increases in STIs have been in genital warts, chlamydia, which has increased by 50 per cent., and HIV. The Florey unit operates an appointments system. It is aware that clinics in Slough and London have tried a walk-in system, which on the face of it might appear attractive. People do not have to make that embarrassing telephone call and do not have to wait; they can just turn up. However, long queues tend to form at such clinics. That is a sign of the level of demand for such stigma-free service. There is corresponding evidence that some people who join the queue do not reach the front—they give up and go away. The consequences, both for those people and for general public health, will emerge much later.
Dr. Tang and those at the Florey unit are working to increase the unit's size to cope with the growth in the number of cases with which they deal. There is an appeal to raise funds for that, which I strongly support. A bid has been made for a greater allocation to the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals national health service trust, so that the unit can continue to provide the service that the people of Reading, East deserve. For some reason, fund-raising for a genito-urinary clinic is not as easy as it is for a scanner. I wonder why that might be.
The number of people with sexually transmitted infections is rising significantly. In Reading, there is a serious problem with teenage pregnancy. Those problems are due to an increase in unprotected sex and they affect young women and gay or bisexual young men in particular. That is the problem; what can we do about it? In the mid-1980s, the threat of HIV/AIDS was new. Who can forget the advertisements on television and the leaflets that came through our doors? The level of sexually transmitted infection was then lower than it is now. The campaign and other information around at the time are credited with having played a part in that.
I would like the Government to launch another public awareness campaign about the dangers of unprotected sex. The campaign should focus on those most vulnerable to STIs and teenage pregnancy. Following the publication of the British Medical Association report in February, I tabled early-day motion 919, entitled "Sex and Death". It called for several measures, mostly those suggested by the BMA. One measure called for was for storylines in soaps watched by young people to feature STIs. Mersey Television should be congratulated. "Brookside" has had a storyline about Jackie Farnham and her ectopic pregnancy and the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust worked with the television company on that story.
I am even more pleased with Mersey Television for its storyline in "Hollyoaks", which has a younger audience than "Brookside". It concerned gonorrhoea and the consequences of unprotected sex. I am enjoying what is happening. Last night, I was interested to see which character was thought to have been the source of the infection. It is not always the usual suspects. The period that it takes to develop the storyline for such programmes means that it is unlikely that they carried them as a result of my early-day motion or even the BMA report. I also declare an interest as an unpaid founder trustee of the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust.
124WH
The Department of Health has been running pilot screening programmes for chlamydia in Portsmouth and the Wirral. For the past 15 years, a massive campaign has taken place in Sweden to educate and screen the population. Chlamydia is now rare; it is about 3 per cent., down from 15 per cent., and there has been a reduction in ectopic pregnancies for all ages, most markedly in women under 30. It is those younger women whose ectopic pregnancies are most likely to have been caused by Chlamydia—although that is not the only cause of ectopic pregnancy.
The official view is that 50 per cent. of ectopic pregnancies are directly caused by chlamydia. That information from Sweden means that, for women under 25, almost all ectopics are due to a current or very recent infection. One in 100 pregnancies is ectopic. Thankfully, an increasing number are detected early and can be removed. In some such pregnancies, the foetus dies on its own. In all cases, however, there is damage to the fallopian tubes and the woman's fertility. Ectopic pregnancies kill up to 10 women a year and many result in emergency hospitalisation and a period of physical and emotional recovery for the woman. As well as the trauma caused by such a major operation, the fertility of women who have been hospitalised will have been seriously damaged.
Even a cold cost-benefit analysis of the cost of an education and screening programme, such as that in Sweden, compared with the later cost to the health service of ectopic pregnancy and other consequences of chlamydia supports the widening out of a screening programme to the whole United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to support an extension of the screening programme nationwide. As well as being good in cost-benefit terms, extending such a screening service fits with the philosophy of trying to reduce the number of health interventions and to move to a preventative health strategy.
I am grateful to Councillor Catherine Wilton from Reading borough council for passing me details of the recent report of the Office for Standards in Education on sex education. It showed that education about STIs is receiving less attention than in the past. Even though infections such as HIV remain a significant health problem, young people perceive it as less of a concern and that is contributing to the lack of use of condoms by those who are sexually active.
I am pleased that, as a result of the Ofsted report, my hon. Friend the Minister, who is responsible for public health, said
"sex and relationships education is most effective when it is taught in the context of relationships and values and is linked to contraceptive services that young people trust."
There is worry that that is not the approach being taken by all schools in Reading. Concerns have been expressed to me that some schools are teaching sex education in a mechanical way and not putting sex in the context of relationships, respect and the importance of contraceptive services.
In July 2000, the Department for Education and Skills issued guidance to schools on sex and relationships education. That provided guidance on the content of SRE, lesson plans and case studies. Work has also been taking place in Bristol on a programme that is targeted specifically at boys. The Department for

125WH
Education and Skills has also been seeking to reduce the amount of prescription in the national curriculum where it can. However, it is accepted that some elements are taught in the national curriculum.
The current position with STIs means that the teaching and the content of the teaching of SRE should not only be the subject of guidance. Such education should be part of the national curriculum. I ask the Minister to talk to her colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills about making the teaching of sex and relationships education part of the national curriculum.
Finally, I am pleased to have been part of a Government who have published a draft sexual health strategy. That there was not one in place before is nothing to be proud of, but the BMA report shows the importance of achieving a national strategy as soon as possible. However, a strategy will do nothing unless we implement measures to tackle these problems in a practical way. I look to the Government with the hope that measures such as the ones for which I have called in this debate will be introduced. I want a national screening programme for chlamydia, better and more focused sex and relationship education, and a national education and awareness campaign such as the one launched in the 1980s. It is not about promiscuity or behaviour; it is about ensuring that if people are sexually active, they are safe, and about reducing the number of sexually transmitted infections and the consequential risk of damage to fertility or death.
I look forward to the Minister's reply and to hearing her answers to the points that I have made.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing this debate and choosing to discuss something that is becoming such a serious public health issue. She mentioned in particular her concerns about chlamydia and teenage pregnancy and covered some of the wider issues relating to sexual health, including an information campaign. I want to try to respond to each of those points in turn.
My hon. Friend is right that the trend of increasing sexually transmitted infections is serious and needs to be turned round. That is why last year we set out the first ever national sexual health and HIV strategy. It follows the teenage pregnancy strategy launched three years ago and looks at sexual health across the board, but primarily in adults. The teenage pregnancy strategy already provides lessons from which we can benefit when looking at the broader issues surrounding adult sexual health.
Since the strategy was launched, there has been a drop of more than 6 per cent. in teenage conceptions in the past two years. There is still a long way to go, but that shows that it is possible to change outcomes. It is not a simple matter, as a number of complex factors are involved, but progress can be made. Tackling poor sexual health is an important part of addressing broader health inequalities. There is a strong link between social deprivation and sexually transmitted infections, abortions and teenage conceptions.
The reasons for the rising trend in sexually transmitted infections are complicated. Young people are at particular risk of catching STIs. There is some
126WH
evidence of greater complacency in attitudes, but equally some evidence that condom use among young men has increased in the past decade. That is why it is important to link the work on STIs with that on teenage pregnancy. In planning for services, we must also recognise that the more that we improve testing and screening services, the more sexually transmitted infections we will find.
Lembit Öpik: On that point, the Minister will probably know that this is national condom week, sponsored by Durex—a campaign that I helped to launch in Cardiff. Will she welcome the message of that campaign, which is simply to say, in a non-judgmental way, "If you're going to have sex, make sure it's safe sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy and reduce the risk of getting a sexually transmitted infection"?
Yvette Cooper: Yes, I am aware of that campaign and I welcome work throughout the community to make people aware of the risks of unsafe sex, with its health and other consequences, and of condom use as well. I shall say a little more in a minute about the work that we are doing on an information campaign. We must also recognise that there are issues relating to HIV prevention too. Although our record on that compares well with that of other European countries, the level of new HIV diagnoses is still a matter of serious concern, with more than 4,000 new cases last year. Sex between men is still the predominant route of infection in the UK, but more than half of the new diagnoses last year were acquired heterosexually and it is estimated that more than 80 per cent. of those were probably acquired abroad. That is why the work of the Department for International Development in supporting HIV programmes overseas, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is so important and has so many repercussions in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East asked about a national campaign on the dangers of sexually transmitted infections. I agree that we should have a new national information campaign on the risks of such infections and the problems that can arise from them. We want to start a new campaign for young adults in the autumn and we shall start to invest in that campaign this year. We have already carried out some research into what might make a difference and looked at the national teenage pregnancy media campaign, which has a good evaluation with 70 per cent. of young people being aware of the campaign and having a good understanding of the key information being communicated. The teenage pregnancy campaign already includes information about sexually transmitted infections, particularly chlamydia, but we now need a broader campaign for young adults.
It is clear that the new campaign should not be a repeat of the fear-based HIV campaigns of the 1980s. They took place in a different context and in different circumstances. Evidence suggests that such an approach with the tombstones that we all remember would not work effectively if it were repeated today and that campaigns should be focused on the experience of young people today and the risks that they face. Such an approach must not be prudish or patronising if it is to work. The Government's role is not to tell people how

127WH
to lead their sex lives, but to provide them with information about the risks of sexually transmitted infections so that they can make their own informed choices and understand the risks to their health.
We are planning to start the campaign in the autumn, although considerable work is already being done. However, we must continue to fund separate health promotion work for those most at risk of HIV and separate targeted work in local areas to try to reduce the rate of sexually transmitted infections.
My hon. Friend referred to improving sex education and mentioned the reports of the Office for Standards in Education and the British Medical Association on the importance of improving education in schools on sexually transmitted infections and HIV. Ofsted highlighted good practice and its report will be circulated to schools and local education authorities throughout the country because it sets out some of the issues that can make a difference and contribute to effective sexual relationship education, including matters such as inviting a local doctor to discuss sexually transmitted infections with students, providing a confidential health advice service in schools, and teaching in a context of relationships and not just biology.
My Department is working with the Department for Education and Skills to provide greater focus on sexually transmitted infections as part of the improvements being planned for sex and relationships education. The Ofsted report was commissioned as part of the teenage pregnancy strategy to try to drive up standards in sex and relationships education, but we must go further, including the commissioning of detailed practical guidance for teachers with lesson plans and good practice in education about sexually transmitted infections.
Ofsted also emphasised the effectiveness of specialist sex and relationships teachers and a programme piloting a new scheme to train and accredit such teachers will be available from the autumn through the healthy schools programme.
The issue is extremely serious. Many young women—equally, many young men—are simply unaware of the prevalence of chlamydia, or in some cases of what it is. Screening, as well as information, is important, as my hon. Friend said. Chlamydia is now the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the United Kingdom, with as many as one in 10 young women infected in some parts of the country. Although it is easily treated with antibiotics, my hon. Friend is right to say that many cases are never diagnosed, and that untreated chlamydia in women can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. Some estimates suggest that that costs the national health service at least £50 million each year.
That is why we have stated a commitment to a national screening programme for chlamydia. I agree that such a programme needs to be introduced and it will roll out to 10 sites later this year, supported initially by new investment of £1.5 million. It will build on the successful pilot study carried out in Portsmouth and on the Wirral. The programme will primarily target young women, but will also promote greater uptake of testing among young men.
128WH
In future, we will rely on the development of new technology to make testing easier. Some interesting work has been done in partnership with the Ministry of Defence to provide new technology that allows much more rapid diagnosis of chlamydia. Using it, a simple urine test could provide results on-site within 40 minutes. That could lead eventually to a much more effective and rapid screening service that avoided the need for notification of test results by post and return visits for treatment. The project will be funded by a grant of £4.6 million during the next two years from the capital modernisation fund. It is an important and innovative example of cross-Government working, with technology developed for defence being used to improve NHS services as well.
My hon. Friend mentioned genito-urinary medicine services, which I agree face pressure from the rising trend in STIs. We are conscious of that and are considering related issues as part of the implementation of the sexual health strategy. We want to set out an implementation plan and some issues related to GUM services will be a critical part of that. We should also recognise the vital part that primary care trusts can play in implementing the strategy, by commissioning services from GUM clinics and others, and through earlier diagnosis. Primary care trusts could consider prevention, as well as providing and increasing services in primary care. They have a unique perspective across the community, hospitals and primary care, linking the NHS and local authorities, so they give us great potential to develop sexual health strategy in future.
My hon. Friend mentioned issues connected with the teenage pregnancy strategy, which has made some important progress, with a drop in teenage conceptions of more than 6 per cent. However, we need to go further. That partly relates to the same issues, such as improving sex and relationship education, building on the best practice that Ofsted identified and ensuring that standards can be raised across the board.
We must also build on the media campaign, which has so far been effective in terms of recognition, and on broader support for young people across the community by raising their self-esteem, and by providing them with alternative opportunities and information and advice about contraception. The number of youth clinics and health advice clinics for young people has increased by more than 20 per cent., which gives more young people the specialist support that they need.
As my hon. Friend said, there is no single solution for the problem, but action on a range of fronts—on information, services, advice. early diagnosis and improving treatment—can make an important difference. There is evidence of it having an impact in other countries and in other circumstances; and we need to recognise some of the international aspects. It is not something that one partner can do alone. The sexual health strategy is an important way forward. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising those important matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The House congratulates the Minister on the speed of her delivery and the amount of information that she delivered.
We now move to the final debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Public Service Obligation Orders
1.30 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am delighted to have secured this debate, which is the first that I have secured in Westminster Hall. I am especially pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), will reply. I know that he has some Shetland antecedents and that his portfolio includes many of the reserved transport matters that remain of great interest to me and my constituents. I hope that he will find time to return to his roots and visit Shetland, where I assure him of a warm welcome. Shetland is famous—some might say notorious—for its hospitality. Indeed, if he brings with him a public service obligation order, I can offer him more than a warm welcome—I can assure him of a hero's welcome.
I have spoken in this Chamber before about my obsession with transport. It is an obsession for which I make no apology. If one lives in an island community, as I do, transport is crucial to everything: get that right and just about everything else will fall into place. Since 1997, the Government have placed great emphasis on the need for social inclusion. We in Orkney and Shetland regard air services and the provision of transport services as a matter of social inclusion. Social inclusion is as important for a peripheral island community as it is for a peripheral housing estate in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
Let me give a few examples of our transport arrangements. The ferry alternative to air services to Shetland is a 14-hour overnight journey from Shetland to Aberdeen. From Orkney, it is a two-hour ferry journey to Scrabster, and from there to Aberdeen is at least a four-hour car journey-I have done that, so I can tell hon. Members that four hours is pushing it slightly. In that context, air services are crucial.
The return ticket that I bought in Orkney for this week's journey to Westminster cost £528 plus taxes. I can say that without blanching and without needing to sit down because it is paid by the Fees Office. If I had to use my private or my business income to pay for it, I would be rather less sanguine about that sort of expenditure. The Minister can doubtless imagine how it is when, for example, a family suffers a sudden bereavement and has to fly south at short notice. The myriad conditions, such as having to fly on a Saturday, would result in the family not being entitled to cheap fares. Constituents have recently come to my surgery saying that it would cost in excess of £900 for two or three members of a family to attend a family funeral in Glasgow.
There is a massive knock-on extra cost for the provision of health services on the islands, because specialist services are increasingly provided from Aberdeen and Inverness. In education, the provision of orchestras or sports services or any extension of interest in drama involves travelling away from the islands. Doing that in a reasonable length of time is dependent on air services.
I hesitate to speak of rugby clubs in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a fine one in my constituency. Orkney rugby football club is striving to
130WH
get into Scottish national division four. For a community of our size, that is a considerable achievement. We have a budget of £40,000 a year to run that club. I hazard a guess that there is not another rugby club in the country that cannot pack the first 15 into four cars and drive them wherever they need to go. That is the extent of the burden that is placed on us, whereas many communities on the mainland take ease of travel for granted.
The constant threat to communities such as those that I represent is that of depopulation. To make those communities attractive so that people move to them and stay in them, they must be made accessible, but if one speaks of subsidising air routes, state aid rules come into play. The Minister will be aware that derogations, through the provision of public service obligation orders, are allowed under European Union law.
The European Commission's third package of air transport liberalisation measures was adopted under Council regulation 2408, which trips very nicely off the tongue, in 1992. That regulation contains provisions under article 4 that permit the imposition of a public service obligation on scheduled air services within the European Union. Under the regulation, member states have the legal authority to impose a PSO in respect of scheduled air services on routes serving peripheral and development regions within their jurisdiction. The rationale for imposing a PSO should be based on the consideration that the maintenance of regular air services is vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located.
Furthermore, a PSO should be imposed where adequate provision of air services in terms of continuity, capacity and pricing would not be possible if air carriers considered solely their own commercial interests. That is very much the case in the highlands and islands. In selecting routes for PSO designation, member states are required to incorporate public interest considerations in addition to an assessment of the adequacy of services provided by alternative modes of transportation. A service that charges £528 plus taxes for travel between Orkney and London could not, within any reasonable definition of the term, be described as adequate.
I will examine briefly the experience of other countries within the EU that impose PSOs on domestic routes. The first example is that of France, where 46 domestic routes are subject to PSOs. The remarkable thing is that they are largely within France itself they do not serve only island communities. A lot of them operate out of the big Paris airports. Some 18 of them have been imposed on links with Corsica, and the most expensive fare that I have been able to find linking Paris with Bastia or Calvi on Corsica is £84.
In Italy, there are PSOs on routes between Sardinia and Milan and Sardinia and Rome. The Cagliari-Rome route has eight round trips per day and the maximum one-way fare is £41. Sardinia has a much more robust economy than either of the two communities that I represent, but the Sardinians are supported by their central Government because they are valued by them. Sadly-this is not a comment on the present Government-Governments for time immemorial have failed to place a proper value on peripheral and island communities such as Orkney, Shetland or the Western Isles.

131WH
In Portugal there are PSOs on 10 domestic routes, four of them linking Lisbon or Oporto with the Azores. In 1999, the total subsidy was £16.9 million and 1.4 million passengers were carried. Again, we see the sort of community that is subject to all the conditions that are attached to PSOs by the EU and that is able to have PSOs placed on it. One has to wonder why, if we are all supposed to be on a glorious level playing field in the EU, people living in island communities in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal are given that sort of treatment by their Governments but we are not.
It is not, however, all about cheap fares. Fares are the most easily identifiable issue about which constituents who approach me speak most animatedly. With PSOs, there are all sorts of possibilities. With them comes the opportunity to stipulate minimum service standards, the size and nature of the aircraft that is to be provided, the seating capacity and the timetabling people can leave the island for the mainland at a time of day that is useful and that will allow them to return when they have completed their business.
The penalties that can be imposed for noncompliance with a PSO are also of great importance. Many of the benefits that I see in the imposition of PSOs stem from the fact that at present we are greatly dependent on our air services, yet we have little control over them. I pay tribute in particular to Loganair, which operates the British Airways franchise to Orkney and Shetland. The company is meticulous about keeping me and my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament informed about what it is doing and how it feels the service can be better operated. That is because it chooses to do so. If it chose not to, I could do nothing about it.
For something that is so important to many aspects of island life, that measure of local control is absolutely essential. We already have some experience of PSOs, as all the internal flights within Orkney and Shetland operate under them. Until recently in Orkney, that was limited to a handful of flights. However, the difference that the operation of PSOs made to communities like Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay was immense. It gave them the confidence to attract and keep people in those vulnerable communities. What happens to North Ronaldsay today will happen to mainland Orkney in five or 10 years and, no doubt, to the rest of the highlands and islands in 20 years. If we allow that constant drip of depopulation, we shall eventually find that we are all living in London-and heaven help us when that happens.
It is probably awfully poor form to refer to one's maiden speech, but I cannot help recalling time and again something that I said when I first came to the House-that I come here to represent communities that are proudly self-reliant. We are not subsidy junkies; we have a great contribution to make to the rest of the United Kingdom, not least that which flows through Flotta and Sullom Voe in the form of revenue to the Treasury from the oil industry. We have a lot to offer. The strength of the United Kingdom comes from the diversity of its communities. There is an obligation on central Government to ensure the survival of the widest possible range of communities. If communities such as
132WH
Orkney or Shetland, or even the smaller ones such as North Ronaldsay or Papa Stour, Papa Westray or Graemsay, are depopulated, we shall all be the poorer.
I am conscious that I have spoken for almost 15 minutes. I am keen that the Minister should be allowed as much opportunity as possible to give a full exposition of the Government's thinking. Perhaps, in the course of that, he might be kind enough, if I conclude my remarks now, to allow me the occasional intervention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I call the Minister, who is a very regular contributor to debates in Westminster Hall.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on having secured the debate and on the sensible and clear way in which he has presented his case. The proud and self-reliant people of Orkney and Shetland can be proud that they have a good advocate. He is a doughty fighter for them, and may be for many years to come. I also congratulate him on having mentioned my antecedents. More than a century ago Magnus James Jamieson left Shetland to find his fortune in England. I could not have moved further away-in Plymouth, I am about as far as one can be in the United Kingdom from the Shetland Isles.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bar Solihull.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the peripherality of the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is hardly surprising that he should be such a forceful advocate for good transport links between island communities and the mainland and I am aware that he spoke in a debate on rural and island transport on 8 January. At that time, he said that the chance to discuss island issues in the House is rare, so I am sure that he is glad to have had an opportunity to put the spotlight on the concerns that he has raised for Orkney and Shetland today.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the ferry journey from Shetland to Aberdeen takes 14 hours and it is, I believe, quite a rough one at many times of the year. No one can doubt that air transport is the only means of transport capable of providing the adequate links to the mainland that are essential to ensure the economic and social well-being of island communities. I can well understand the concern that those services should be reasonably priced and within the means of ordinary people.
Perhaps I can begin by setting out the regulatory framework that governs the air transport market and the extent to which Governments may intervene in it. There is a fully liberalised air transport market within the European Community. That means that Governments are not at liberty to interfere in the operation of the market. However, the European law that establishes the single air transport market recognises that special provisions may be necessary to maintain adequate services to regions. It therefore creates the ability for Governments to intervene in the

133WH
operation of the air transport market by imposing PSOs. A PSO is an obligation imposed on a carrier to provide a set level of service on a particular route to ensure that the service satisfies fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing. The aim of a PSO is to ensure the adequate provision of scheduled air services to such standards, responsibility for which air carriers would not assume on a commercial basis.
The regulation empowers member states to impose a PSO in respect of scheduled air services on a route serving a peripheral or development area or on a thin route to any regional airport, where such a route is considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located and where an adequate standard of service would not be provided by carriers having regard solely to their commercial interest.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough not to mention it, but one of the other links in the country is between Plymouth, Cornwall and London, which has some of the features that he mentioned. It is a different circumstance but has a similar effect for the people in my area.
The adequacy of standard of service is defined against criteria contained in the regulation, including public interest, the availability of other forms of transport, air fares and conditions for users, and the combined effect of all carriers operating or intending to operate on the route. A member state may, therefore, impose a public service obligation on any route that meets the criteria stated in the regulation.
I should make it clear that imposing a PSO does not in itself subsidise the service, although a route must be subject to a PSO before any subsidy may be paid. When the PSO has been imposed on a route, provided that no carrier has commenced a scheduled air service on that route in accordance with the PSO, the regulation allows the route to be restricted to a single carrier, subject to an open competitive tendering and for remuneration of operating losses incurred by the carrier selected to operate the route.
The Government's overriding policy since the inception of the liberalised air transport market in 1993 is not to intervene in the market unless it is felt absolutely necessary. We consider that the level of air fares is a commercial matter for airlines. The airline takes several factors into account when setting fares, such as the effect that fares would have on the volume and need to maximise capacity.
Mr. Carmichael: That is a fair statement of Government policy, and that of the last Conservative Government, but does the Minister understand the frustration that is felt in the isles when we see other Governments in the EU taking a much more interventionist approach to PSOs? Why should we not be given the same opportunities as others?
Mr. Jamieson: I can assist the hon. Gentleman on that matter. For a PSO to be placed on those routes, the Scottish Executive would have to make an approach to my Department, perhaps jointly with the local authority for the area. The Scottish Executive would have to take
134WH
into consideration any financial implications. As yet, however, we have not had an approach from the Scottish Executive or the local council.
Mr. Carmichael: I am reluctant to ask the Minister to speculate. but could he give us a general steer? If such an approach were made, is there any reason why we should not take the same route as that taken by other EU countries?
Mr. Jamieson: Obviously, the United Kingdom Government will interpret the regulations in our own way. However, I shall move on, as what I am about to say may help the hon. Gentleman.
The exceptions to the policy of non-intervention are economically vital lifeline services that would not be commercially viable without subsidy. In such cases, the Government provide subsidy in accordance with the PSO provisions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are several lifeline air routes in Scotland, which are considered essential to the economic and social welfare of remote communities. The subsidised services include a number of inter-island Orkney and Shetland services, as well as other routes serving the highlands and islands. That shows the commitment of this Government and previous Governments to providing PSOs when it is deemed appropriate.
Aviation safety and regulation are reserved matters. My Department has overall responsibility for UK aviation policy and, therefore, for administering policy on PSOs. However, the Scottish Executive have day-to-day responsibility for considering applications for PSOs within Scotland and for overseeing their imposition, consulting my Department when necessary, especially on new applications. In the case of inter-island routes, the Scottish Executive work closely with the islands councils on their PSOs.
The Scottish Executive have, in the past, provided their full support to the local islands councils in their imposition of PSOs on Orkney and Shetland's internal air services, and they will continue to support the councils when the contracts are renewed.
I want to discuss assessments of the air services from Orkney and Shetland to the mainland against the criteria used for imposing PSOs. All that the PSO can do is specify standards of service that air carriers would not assume if they were solely to consider their commercial interest. If one or more carriers were able to meet those standards and already operated without subsidy, there would be no case for a PSO under our interpretation of the criteria.
I understand the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman about high fares, but costs are inevitably higher per passenger on low-volume routes than on highly packed traffic routes. However, for the Government to impose a PSO on a commercially viable service would mean overriding the long-standing policy of non-intervention other than when the market fails. It would set a precedent that could lead to requests for PSOs on many routes on which fares were perceived to be too high. One from my part of the country might be discussed at that time. The Government do not believe that such an approach would generally be helpful.
Mr. Carmichael: I feel that the Minister makes a bald statement when he says that such an approach would

135WH
not be helpful. I would not deny the people of the southwest of England the opportunity for cheap air travel although, given the availability of road and rail links, I suspect that other considerations would be applied there.
Does the Minister not understand that the distances involved and the reliance on air travel make the case for a PSO compelling? Is there any point in the Scottish Executive approaching his Department to ask for a PSO on, for example, Aberdeen-Kirkwall and Aberdeen-Sumburgh if the policy that his Government pursue is, as he says, one of non-intervention?
Mr. Jamieson: As I explained, it is not entirely a matter of non-intervention, because several routes already have PSOs. Routes have to meet the criteria as we interpret them within the European Union. I was not trying to draw direct comparisons between the southwest and Scotland. I appreciate that there are considerable differences, such as the distances and the hard stretch of water between the mainland and those islands.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any point in the Scottish Executive approaching my Department, but that is a matter for the Scottish
136WH
Executive to decide. That is what devolution is all about. It is not for us to tell the Scottish Executive or the islands council what to do. The Scottish Executive and the people in his locality have to analyse and assess whether the case is worth their consideration, bearing in mind that it could have continuing financial obligations. They would not ignore such obligations, which would probably fall on them.
We feel that we have to interpret the regulation as we think appropriate, but pursuit of the case is up to people locally. The devolved Parliament could make the approaches if it thought that appropriate. Should such an approach be made, we would carefully consider it within our policy framework. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to pursue the case, that would be his first port of call. My officials are in regular contact with colleagues responsible for transport in the Scottish Executive. We would be ready to respond quickly to any changing circumstances on the routes.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, which he made clearly. If circumstances change, we will respond. Should the Scottish Executive make an approach to us, it will be considered with great care, especially in the light of his arguments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken since 1997 to encourage energy efficiency in(a) the domestic sector, (b) the commercial sector, (c) the industrial sector and (d) the public sector; and how much Government financial support has been made available. [50433]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have introduced a wide range of measures, including market incentives, financial assistance, legal obligations, and guidance and information, to encourage energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy. These include:the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) on domestic energy supplies, from 2002 to 2005;
  the Climate Change Levy and Climate Change Agreements;
  the UK Emissions Trading Scheme;
  the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES)
  revised building regulations which require high energy efficiency standards;
  the Market Transformation programme;
  a wide range of measures to support combined heat and power (CHP);
  the Community Energy capital grant programme;
  substantial Government funding of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust to promote and support energy efficiency in the domestic, public, industry and business sectors.

  The majority of DEFRA's financial support for energy efficiency measures is channelled through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (now marketed as Warm Front), the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust. The total funding made available by the Department and its predecessors to support and promote these efficiency programmes in each year since 1997 is set out in the table.

  Total funding for energy efficiency

  £ million1

  1997–98

  110·5

  1998–99

  109·0

  1999–2000

  112·0

  2000–2001

  163·5

  2001–2002

  224·0

  1Includes funding for the Carbon Trust of £26·5 million from recycled Climate Change Levy receipts·

  Eggs
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Lion Code of Practice and Lion Quality Mark in(a) reducing salmonella levels in egg production and (b) raising overall
  156W
  food safety standards; what reference was made to the Lion Quality Scheme in her Department's report entitled "Sustainable Food and Farming—Working Together"; and what plans she has to endorse the British Egg Industry Council's Lion Code of Practice for all eggs sold in the United Kingdom. [53201]

  Mr. Morley
  In the period since 1998 there has been a significant fall in human salmonellosis in Great Britain and in egg-associated salmonella outbreaks. Lion code producers can be proud of the investment they have made in the Lion Mark scheme, which includes vaccination of flocks against salmonella, good biosecurity measures, registration, and traceability and controls on storage times and temperature that go beyond statutory requirements. We warmly endorse the work they have done on this.

  The Sustainable Food and Farming report did not make specific mention of any sectors. The paper indicated where DEFRA and others are taking forward recommendations made by the Policy Commission on Farming and Food, and sought views on what should be done next. I hope that the egg industry will contribute to this exercise.

  Dairy Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to simplify the administration of milk quotas; and if she will make a statement on the benchmarking in the dairy industry. [53209]

  Mr. Morley
  The implementation and administration of the milk quota system is under continuous review. The new Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations, which entered into force on 31 March 2002, will reduce the administrative burden on the industry by removing unnecessary requirements, such as certain deadlines, and liberalising the provisions for the permanent transfer of quota without land.

  We support the use of benchmarking by the dairy sector as a useful tool in identifying and promulgating best practice. We have, for example, already supplied the Milk Development Council (MDC) with Farm Business Survey data for farms with dairy enterprises with a view to the MDC setting up on-line interactive data base which would allow dairy farmers to benchmark their businesses.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to encourage greater co-operation and communication between participants in the dairy supply chain arising from her Department's response to the Milk Task Force report published on 3 January. [53210]

  Mr. Morley
  We shall take every opportunity to encourage all parts of the dairy industry to take up the recommendations of the Milk Task Force to improve communications between one another—for example between supermarkets and their suppliers—and to increase co-operative and collaborative activity—for example between processing and production and between dairy farmers. But it for the industry itself to make progress in these important areas.

  Fruit
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in negotiations to amend the EU marketing standard for apples and pears. [52600]
  157W
  Mr. Morley
  There have been no further discussions since my written reply of 5 March.

  Red Cross
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support her Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects in the UK run by the British Red Cross in rural communities. [52968]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 30 April 2002,Official Report, columns 609–10W.

  Wood Imports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to introduce tariffs and labelling on wood imports. [53654]

  Mr. Morley
  At present we have no plans to introduce tariffs or labels on wood imports. Such controls have, however, been considered as part of a thorough examination of the pros and cons of a variety of courses of action designed to combat illegal logging and to promote the sustainable management of forest overseas.

  In the case of tariffs, we are using the current negotiations in the World Trade Organisation under the Doha development agenda to propose a reduction or elimination of tariffs on timber and wood products from sustainably managed sources. This would provide a positive incentive for owners of forests and those in the international timber trade.

  When considering mandatory labelling, we were mindful that any action would most likely contravene European Union rules on free trade. Instead we announced in July 2000 that all central Government Departments and agencies would actively seek to buy timber from sustainable and legal sources. Wood products and timber labelled under credible certification schemes will be accepted as meeting this requirement.

  We have taken the lead internationally in efforts to combat illegal logging and to promote the sustainable management of forests. We are currently working with partners in the timber trade, the environmental community and with Governments in the timber producing countries. For example, on 18 April the Governments of Indonesia and UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the two parties to a range of actions to tackle forest law enforcement and governance in Indonesia and the import by UK of illegally logged forest products from Indonesia.

  At the forthcoming World Summit, we shall, of course, be aiming to secure further commitment and action on sustainable forest management.

  Financial Support Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the financial support schemes sponsored by her Department and its agencies for(a) horticulture, (b) agriculture,
  158W
  (c) arboriculture, (d) fisheries, (e) pisciculture, (f) environmental projects and (g) environmental protection. [53402]

  Mr. Morley
  An outline of the work of the Department will be provided in the forthcoming departmental report, and information on individual schemes is available on our website. A detailed reply could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether drinking water is extracted from the groundwater under Sellafield. [53651]

  Margaret Beckett
  The groundwater at Sellafield is not used for drinking water supplies.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department held meetings with the Irish Government to discuss the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield between 7 June and 5 October 2001; where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; and which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting. [53358]

  Margaret Beckett
  Apart from the meeting of UK Government officials and officials from Ireland's Department of Public Enterprise on 5 October (referred to in the answer I gave on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 373W), no other meetings took place between the dates specified in the question.

  Arable Farmers
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that there is parity of support for arable farmers across the UK. [53424]

  Mr. Morley
  Agriculture is a devolved responsibility in the United Kingdom. But support for the arable sector, like many others, is governed by the relevant Common Agriculture Policy regimes which set rates of aid and conditions applicable to all Member States.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to prevent illegal meat imports. [53677]

  Mr. Morley
  We have taken a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of animal products. These initiatives have been co-ordinated by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but involve other departments such as HM Customs and Excise and the Food Standards Agency, and the local authorities who are responsible for controls at ports and airports. We have concentrated on raising public awareness of our import rules through our Embassies, and strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing to improve targeting of anti-smuggling measures. We also introduced new posters which are displayed at airports and ports to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be
  159W
  imported. On 28 March we published an action plan which is available in the House Libraries. This plan commits Government to a range of measures including completing a risk assessment of disease risks posed by illegal imports of meat. In addition we have enquired into the use of detector dogs and aim to carry out a pilot this summer. These actions are kept under constant review.

  Pigs
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much post-weaning multisystematic wasting syndrome has added to the production costs of pig meat in the last 12 months. [53701]

  Mr. Morley
  Although no independent studies of the economic effects of this disease have been carried out, the economic consequences can be significant. When the disease is present on farm, the mortality rate for weaner pigs appears to increase from around 3 per cent.-5 per cent. to 5 per cent.-20 per cent. At worst, a continuous 20 per cent. post-weaning mortality rate would increase costs by an estimated £11.00 per 95kg pig sold. This represents 10 per cent.-14 per cent. of the average sale price.

  In addition, the Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that some 300,000 pigs that would otherwise have reached slaughter weight have been lost to the disease. Based on this estimate, the loss to the pig industry is some £21 million at the farm gate, around 2.5 per cent. of total annual farm gate value.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reasons were for the delay in answering the question, Ref 288, tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk on 25 June 2001. [54108]

  Mr. Morley
  This question was overlooked by the Department during the demands of the foot and mouth crisis. I regret the delay.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds exist to enable the Forestry Commission to assist employees with their council tax payments; and if she will make a statement. [53795]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission has no funds which enable it to assist employees with their council tax payments. Forestry Commission employees can, however, apply for assistance from various benevolent funds if they are experiencing financial difficulties.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Forestry Commission employees are being assisted with the payment of council tax; and if she will make a statement. [53797]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission does not assist any employee with their council tax payments.

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. [54486]

  Mr. Morley
  I last met with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 17 April 2002.

  Future of Farming and Food Commission
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total level of funding required to implement the recommendations of the Policy Commission report on the Future of Fanning and Food; and when she plans to begin implementing the report's recommendations. [54489]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commission estimated that implementing its recommendations would cost approximately £500 million over three years. However, the cost of many of the recommendations would depend upon the precise way in which they were implemented.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 26 March a series of early actions as a first step towards implementing the report. In the early autumn, after discussion with all of those with an interest in food, farming, the environment and rural areas, the Government will produce a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England. This will incorporate a definitive response to all of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Flax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what forms of financial assistance are available to farmers intending to grow flax; what assessment she has made of the levels of flax production in the UK; what percentage of agriculturally productive land was under flax in the last year for which figures are available; what steps her Department is taking to encourage flax production; and if she will make a statement. [54490]

  Mr. Morley
  Flax is eligible for aid under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS). Payments rates vary in different parts of the UK. In England the rate in 2001 was £270.88 per hectare. Aid is also payable on the tonnage of flax fibre produced by an authorised primary processor, the most recent rate being £55.67 per tonne.

  Flax production in the UK built up during the early 1990s before falling back again, peaking at just over 20,000 hectares in 1996. In 2001, AAPS aid was claimed for 4,847 hectares of flax in the UK out of a total AAPS claim of 4,511,374 hectares, flax representing 0.1 per cent. of arable agriculturally productive land. The Census total for all agricultural land in the UK, excluding common rough grazing, is 17,323,000 hectares. Flax therefore represents around 0.03 per cent. of all agriculturally productive land.

  The Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Crops, set up to evaluate opportunities for non-food crops and provide strategic advice to Government, has commissioned a case study on the potential for UK grown fibre crops in composite materials. We expect this report to be published in the summer.

  Welfare of Laying Hens Directive
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposed date of implementation of European Directives on the Welfare of Laying Hens. [54162]

  Mr. Morley
  A statutory instrument to implement in England Directive 99/74/EC on the Welfare of Laying Hens was laid before Parliament on Wednesday 1 May.

  Debates will take place in both Houses of Parliament soon.

  Animal Diseases
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of(a) the reopening of livestock markets and (b) other increased animal movements on the incidence of TB and other animal diseases. [54461]

  Mr. Morley
  As yet we do not have enough data to enable an analysis of what part the reopening of markets and resumption of livestock movement has played in the number of incidents of bovine TB disclosed in the first quarter of this year. We will continue to monitor the position carefully with the independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB to produce an analysis when sufficient data are available. The chief veterinary officer has issued general advice to farmers on assessing disease risk when buying in animals. This is contained in the leaflets "Golden Rules for a Healthy Herd" and "Golden Rules for a Healthy Flock".

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plan her Department has to deal with two or more separate animal disease epidemics at the same time; and if she will make a statement. [53799]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: This Department has a range of both legislation and operational procedures in place in order to deal with animal disease epidemics. The Interim Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan provides an operational framework for a response to one or more concurrent outbreaks of disease. My officials are working on these contingency arrangements to ensure a co-ordinated inter-agency approach to disease outbreaks and one that fully involves stakeholders.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation has been(a) allotted and (b) paid for bovine TB for (i) slaughtering and (ii) restriction of movement of cattle in each year since 1980. [53761]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The compensation paid for cattle slaughtered to control bovine TB in each year since 1980 is set out in the table. No compensation is paid because of movement restrictions.

  The compensation rate was changed on 26 August 1998 from 75 per cent. of limited value to full market value of the animals.
  162W

  Year

  Amount(£)

  1980

  289,446

  1981

  365,227

  1982

  250,782

  1983

  295,469

  1984

  284,613

  1985

  337,806

  1986

  310,399

  1987

  525,447

  1988

  368,158

  1989

  584,205

  1990

  1,104,259

  1991

  678,916

  1992

  683,831

  1993

  2,081,436

  1994

  2,019,911

  1995

  1,988,820

  1996

  2,275,481

  1997

  2,386,029

  1998

  3,605,242

  1999

  5,770,983

  2000

  7,307,797

  2001

  7,074,125

  Silk Stream Flood Defence Project
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with the Silk Stream Flood Defence project in the Hendon constituency. [54479]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency (EA) and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. I understand that the EA has recently reviewed the extent of their flood alleviation proposals for the Silk Stream and the London borough of Harrow is due to consider the revised scope of the proposals for planning purposes by the end of May. The EA will then be submitting an application for grant to DEFRA which will be considered against our normal economic, technical and environmental criteria and priority score arrangements. Subject to all approvals and contributions being in place, the EA plan to commence works in summer 2003.

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of private veterinary surgeons have received training for each notifiable disease from her Department and its predecessors in the last five years. [54224]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Private Veterinarians are appointed as Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) by the Department in order to carry out specific functions.

  Part of the appointment process involves departmental training in those areas to which the appointment relates. The objectives of such training are to improve the ability and performance of the LVI in carrying out work for the Department and to provide motivation to achieve and maintain satisfactory standards.

  Following a successful assessment of the trainee's suitability a temporary appointment of six months will be established. During this period an assessment of the officers' competence will be made. Satisfactory assessment leads to a full appointment.
  163W
  It is the responsibility of the Department to maintain a level of training suitable for the LVI to perform his or her functions. Training is complemented with written instructions, newsletters and practice liaison meetings during which new issues and instructions are discussed. The department's official journal of the SVS—State Veterinary Journal—is published and distributed to LVI practices bi-annually. These publications have included a series of articles on notifiable diseases. All LVI's have access to a departmental veterinary officer 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her Department's strategy for coping with a new outbreak of foot and mouth. [54521]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Interim Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency plan was placed on DEFRA's website for consultation on 12 March 2002. It codifies the operational response regime that was developed during the last outbreak and as such forms the basis for any future response to a new disease outbreak. It is however work in progress and will be reviewed to take account of any recommendations made when the official independent inquiries report.

  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to the taxpayer of keeping dogs under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has been in the last 12 months. [54522]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no centralised records of figures or costs of dogs held, by all police forces, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). However the Metropolitan police, who hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, have informed us that the cost for holding such dogs in their area for the last 12 months was £280,030.10.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of time dogs have been held by the police under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was. [54524]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no centralised records of figures or costs of dogs held, by all police forces, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). However, the Metropolitan police, who hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, have informed us that the average length of time for a dog to be held in their area since 1991 is 418 days, but for the one year 2001–02 the average was 51 days.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [54576]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to review the 1991 Act.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dogs are held by the Metropolitan police service under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [54575]
  164W
  Mr. Morley
  The Metropolitan police are currently holding 34 dogs under the 1991 Act.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the total cost of keeping dogs under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [54523]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no centralised records of figures or costs of dogs held, by all police forces, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). However, the Metropolitan police, who hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, have informed us that the total cost within the Metropolitan police of holding dogs under the 1991 Act since it came into force is £4,567,692.36.

  Scrapie
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to introduce a compensation scheme for rams devalued owing to culling under the National Scrapie Plan. [54848]

  Mr. Morley
  Participation in the National Scrapie Plan is voluntary, and at present it is only those rams which are most susceptible to scrapie which have to be removed from the breeding flock (either by slaughter or castration). It is normal farming practice to remove rams that are not required for breeding, and the plan allows sheep farmers to take susceptibility to scrapie into account in this process. The market provides a return for rams that are removed, and the Government have no plans for a subsidy to top up this return. Decisions on the financial arrangements for any future schemes under the National Scrapie Plan will be taken in full consultation with stakeholders.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the future funding of the National Scrapie Plan. [54847]

  Mr. Morley
  The National Scrapie Plan is a long-term programme for the eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies from sheep in Great Britain. Funding for future years of the plan will be finalised under the normal spending review process.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received in respect of proposals to change the planning system as they refer to radioactive waste disposal. [54167]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department invited views on the proposals to give Parliament an opportunity to approve in principle major infrastructure projects including radioactive waste disposal schemes set out in the consultation paper "New Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects". Of some 400 responses, 22 referred to radioactive waste disposal. We are currently considering all the replies received in response to the consultation paper.

  There were no similar invitations to comment on radioactive waste disposal in the Planning Green Paper: "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" nor the other consultation papers: "Possible Changes to the Use

  165W
  Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions—A Consultation, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: the Government's Proposals for Change", and "Planning Obligations: Delivering a Fundamental Change".

  All the proposals in the Planning Green Paper and the consultation papers apply to England.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth Games
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Prime Minister what events he plans to attend during the Commonwealth games in Manchester. [53189]

  The Prime Minister
  At present, I expect to attend both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth games.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [55342]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) to carry out a project examining the development of Electronic Networks in the UK over the next decade.

  The project will look at predicted technology and market developments; the importance of Electronic Networks to UK productivity and growth and the regulatory challenges for the next decade. The output of the project will be a report to Government which will assist with the setting of future Government policy and approach, and will contribute to strategic thinking for the new regulator Ofcom.

  Responsibility for the current performance, development and economic impact of UK Electronic Networks already lies with groups including the DTI, Oftel, the Office of the e-Envoy, HM Treasury, the Broadband Stakeholders Group and those involved in the Digital TV Action Plan. The PIU has been asked to take a long-term strategic view to complement this existing body of work.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the DTI will be the Sponsor Minister for the project.

  The scoping note for the project is available on the PIU website, www.piu.gov.uk. The PIU aims to complete its study by summer 2002.

  Delivery Unit
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1450W, on the No. 10 Delivery Unit, if he will list the names of the full-time and part-time civil servants employed in the No. 10 Delivery Unit working in the areas of (a) transport, (b) health, (c) crime and asylum and (d) education. [54689]

  The Prime Minister
  The Delivery Unit reports to me under the day-to-day supervision of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald, and is headed by Professor Michael Barber.
  166W
  Professor Barber is supported in his work across the key areas of public service: health; education; crime and asylum and transport, by the Deputy Head of the unit, William Jordan, and team leaders, Liz Lawrence, Adrian Masters, Tony O'Connor, Rosemary Scully and Jenny Wright.

  The unit is further staffed by a team with experience of delivery, drawn from the public and private sectors.

  Security Services Employees
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many applications were referred by the Cabinet Secretary to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments in respect of employees or former employees of(a) MI5, (b) MI6 and (c) GCHQ in each year from 1 May 1997. [54669]

  The Prime Minister
  None. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments considers applications from the most senior Crown servants who wish to take up outside appointments within two years of leaving the service. It is independent and the Cabinet Secretary has no role in referring these applications to it.

  The committee is serviced by its own secretariat and it gives its advice directly to me, or, if the applicant is a diplomat or in MI6, to the Foreign Secretary. Since 1 May 1997 until the end of the reporting year on 31 March 2002, the committee has considered no applications from MI5 or GCHQ, and two (one in 1998 and one earlier this year) from MI6.

  Business appointment applications from staff below the most senior levels are dealt with by the Department itself, after Cabinet Office advice if appropriate under the rules. However, the rules make provision, exceptionally, for any application to be referred to the advisory committee if the Head of the Home civil service and the departmental Minister so agree. In the period concerned there have been no such cases in MI5, MI6 or GCHQ.

WALES

  Voting Age
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on reducing the minimum voting age in elections to the National Assembly for Wales to 16 years. [53149]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. We have no plans to reduce the voting age.

  Public Sector Workers (Recruitment)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about recruitment of public sector workers by Government Departments in Wales. [53150]

  Mr. Touhig
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any recent discussions. We are always available to meet
  colleagues on this or other matters.

  Poverty
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about integrated policies to tackle poverty in Wales. [53152]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the First Minister about a range of issues, including poverty in Wales, and ways to tackle it.

  Euro
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation his Department has made of Wales' preparations for possible UK adoption of the euro. [53153]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Wales has been preparing for the arrival of the euro since 1998 when the old Welsh Office set up the Euro Task Force for Wales to make Welsh businesses aware of the issues which might affect them following the introduction of the euro in the 12 countries of the eurozone.

  The Task Force has been disseminating information to businesses across Wales in a number of ways including conferences, exhibitions, a telephone helpline, website and leaflets.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on changes in manufacturing employment in Wales in the past 12 months. [53154]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister and other ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including manufacturing employment in Wales.

  The Government recognise it is a particularly tough time for manufacturers in the UK, due to the slowdown in world economy and weakness of the euro. However, these problems are not confined to the UK or in particular, to Wales. I am pleased to note that Wales is posting the fastest fall in unemployment of any region or country in the UK.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Trade and Industry regarding renewable energy production in Wales. [53155]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry regularly to discuss a range of issues, including energy production in Wales.

  My hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget announcements contained a number of incentives for renewable energy production.

  They include: enhanced capital allowances for business investment in energy saving technologies; exemption from the Climate Change Levy for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and coal mine methane projects; the first economy wide-emissions trading scheme; a fuel duty differential for sulphur free petrol and diesel; a fuel duty
  168W
  exemption for hydrogen; lower duty for biodiesel; and a commitment to review the potential use of economic instruments to tackle household energy efficiency.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales to ensure that Wales plays its part in achieving the UK Government's target to produce 10 per cent. of the UK's energy from renewable sources by 2010. [53169]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with my ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including renewable energy.

  The overall target, for the UK, of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 is 10 per cent.

  I am pleased to note that the Assembly's Economic Development Committee has recently launched a consultation paper on renewable energy. The committee will propose targets, for Wales, for both electricity production and heat production from renewable sources by 2010 and 2020, in the light of the responses to the consultation. These proposals will inform the National Assembly's development of a renewable policy for Wales.

  I look forward to receiving the committee's final report.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on student debt in Wales. [53156]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet regularly with colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including student finance.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues regarding the audit body proposed to oversee health spending in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [53157]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with both the Assembly First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. I have also discussed it with the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services.

  The Commission for Health and Improvement (CHI) and the Audit Commission are England and Wales bodies. The First Minister and the Assembly Cabinet are content with the proposals in principle. It will be necessary to make sure that this works properly and effectively for Wales, and these detailed issues will be addressed during the framing of the necessary legislation.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the impact of the Budget on health spending in Wales. [53172]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have spoken with the Assembly First Minister and with the Health Secretary about the increase to the Welsh Block consequential on the increases in Government spending on health announced in the recent Budget.
  169
  The resulting amount for the Block was £1.8 billion over the next five years and I am pleased to say that the Assembly intends to spend the full amount on health.

  Film Industry
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he is having with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on measures to promote the film industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [53158]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular meetings with colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including the promotion of the Welsh film industry.

  Health and Social Care (Monmouth)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the proposed health and social care facility for Monmouth. [53159]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I discuss health issues on a regular basis with the First Minister and the Health and Social Care Minister on a regular basis.

  I am aware that the proposed health and social care joint facility project (Monnow Court) is a collaboration between the local authority, Gwent NHS Trust, Gwent HA, LHG, CHC and the voluntary sector.

  Social Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding improvements in the provision of social services in Wales. [53160]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of matters, including improvements in the provision of social services in Wales.

  European Union (Funding)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the value in 2001–02 of(a) EU structural funding and agricultural support payments in Wales and (b) the share of the UK's EU contribution that is represented by the Welsh share of UK GDP. [53161]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 2001–02 structural fund payments in Wales amounted to £146 million and agricultural support payments amounted to £155 million.

  Tourism
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the use of the cultural and heritage assets of Wales in encouraging inbound tourism. [53162]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with my ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including the tourism industry in Wales.
  170W
  I am pleased to note that to help encourage tourists to visit Wales and enable them to make the most of Wales' unique historical and cultural assets, the Wales Tourist Board is working with a range of partners to develop a Cultural Tourism Strategy for Wales. This strategy will help visitors access and experience the various aspects of Welsh culture.

  Pensioners (Transport Use)
  Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has held with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the use of transport by pensioners in Wales. [53164]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Minister and discuss a variety of issues relating to transport in Wales.

  From April 2001, the Assembly introduced free bus passes and discounts of at least 50 per cent. on bus fares for pensioners (men aged 65 and over, and women aged 60 and over) and disabled people.

  From April 2002 the Assembly introduced free bus travel for pensioners and disabled people.

  In both cases the Assembly is supporting the measures by funding local authorities through the revenue settlement.

  The Assembly shares the UK Government's commitment to eradicate the inequality in the concessions ages for men and women at the earliest opportunity, and a Bill is proceeding through Parliament to enable that policy to be implemented throughout England and Wales.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury about fiscal measures to assist small businesses in Wales. [53165]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to discuss a wide range of issues, including small businesses.

  The Chancellor's recent Budget announcement included a number of fiscal measures to support small businesses at every stage. These include simplification of VAT for small businesses by increasing the VAT registration threshold, extending optional flat rate scheme and further reforms of the VAT annual accounting scheme.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury about measures to assist small businesses in Wales. [53144]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to discuss a wide range of issues, including small businesses.

  The Chancellor's recent Budget announcement included a number of fiscal measures to support small businesses at every stage. These include a reduction in the corporation tax starting rate from 10 per cent. to zero, helping small businesses throughout the UK and Wales to continue to flourish and prosper.
  171W
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about measures to assist small businesses in Wales. [53163]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to discuss a wide range of issues, including small businesses.

  The Chancellor's recent Budget announcement included a number of fiscal measures to support small businesses at every stage. These include Research and Development tax credit, benefiting 50 large firms in Wales.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the encouragement of small and medium enterprises in Wales. [53167]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Chancellor's recent Budget announcement included a number of fiscal measures to support SMEs at every stage. These include measures to promote enterprise in disadvantaged communities in Wales with stamp duty relief and Community Investment Tax Credit.

  Dentistry
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had on provision of NHS dental treatment in Wales. [53166]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS and other health matters.

  Brussels (Welsh Representation)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the National Assembly in relation to official Welsh representation in Brussels. [53168]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with my ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including representation of Wales in Europe. However, the issue of official Welsh representation in Brussels is entirely an internal matter for the Assembly.

  I am pleased to note that the Assembly Executive recognises the importance of Wales having a strong voice in Europe and that it plans to clarify who represents Wales in Brussels-thereby strengthening its own representation in this region.

  Devolution
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the devolution settlement. [53170]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The devolution settlement continues to work well, serving the interests of people both in Wales and the rest of the UK.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with 172W
  ministerial colleagues about the impact of the climate change levy on manufacturing employment in Wales. [53171]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues and discuss a wide range of issues, including the impact of the climate change levy on manufacturing employment.

  Part of the Government's strategy of encouraging energy efficiency through the Climate Change Levy (CCL) has been to move the burden of tax from 'goods' such as jobs to 'bads' such as pollution. The Government is committed to making Britain one of the most competitive environments for business in the world, which is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that the overall tax burden in the UK is much lower than the EU average. It is also important to consider the less-easily quantifiable costs on operating a business, such as employment regulation.

  The climate change levy is small in proportion to total energy costs, and energy costs themselves are only a small proportion of total business costs. All sectors can reduce the impact of the levy on their costs by improving energy efficiency, and taking advantage of the available incentives.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what subjects and on which dates his Department has recently consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52490]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None, the nature of its functions means that the Wales Office undertakes very few consultations. When it does so, though, my Department will take account of the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by my hon. Friend the Minister for Young People in November 2001.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact her Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54337]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44886]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Public Private Partnership for which this Department is responsible has not been delayed.

  Better Quality Service Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of the services of her Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50320]
  173W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The review of the Department's activities and services under the Better Quality Service Programme started in 1999 and is reflected in its Spending Review 2000 Service Delivery Agreement, which requires all its activities t be reviewed by 2004. We are on course to meet this target: progress is reported in the Department's Annual Report. There are four more Quinquennial reviews of the Department's Non-Departmental Public Bodies to be carried out in the next two years.

  Building Projects
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the building projects under construction; and what coolant will be used for the building services water chilling system for such projects. [52049]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Within my Department there are no current building projects under construction, hence there is no further information to provide.

  National Insurance Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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, (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of her Department and (d) higher education. [52083]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 29 April 2002 by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,Official Report column 544.

  Special Educational Needs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special needs places are available in special schools in England and Wales; and what the equivalent figure was in 1997. [52528]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the number of special needs places available in special schools is not collected.

  The numbers of pupils on roll in maintained and non-maintained special schools in January 1997 and 2001 were 98,249 and 95,598 respectively. This represents 1.2 per cent. of all pupils in 1997 and 1.1 per cent. in 2001.

  For information on Welsh special schools I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Red Cross
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support her Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects run by the British Red Cross. [52947]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I refer to the Home Office answer to this question on 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 609W.

  Disabled Access
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what adjustments have been made to 174W
  her Department's premises following the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and what the cost of these adjustments was as a proportion of her Department's budget. [53027]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Separate records are not kept on specific changes or costs of modifications to the Department's premises to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Expenditure on statutory and beneficial "reasonable adjustments" is subsumed within on-going works programmes covering a wide range of building maintenance and improvement projects.

  Work-based Training
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to compensate families who lose benefits when their child undertakes vocational work-based training; [53338]

  (2) what plans the Government have to protect the level of child maintenance of families whose children take the work-placed training option; [54174]

  (3) if the Government will increase the level of financial support to families whose children take work-placed training. [54173]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no plans at present to change the arrangements for supporting young people engaged in work-based training, and their families.

  Private Tuition
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to introduce a system of inspection for the private tuition industry; and if she will make a statement; [54197]

  (2) what plans she has to regulate the private tuition industry; and if she will make a statement. [54198]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no plans to regulate private tuition. Employment agencies and businesses, including those that supply private tutors, are already regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated Regulations, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Henry Box School
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets were agreed by Henry Box school, Oxfordshire, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status; and which have not yet been achieved. [54426]

  Mr. Timms
  The Henry Box school has been operating as a language college since September 2001. 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.

  Ofsted Reports
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the reports she expects Ofsted to publish in the next six months. [54891]
  175W
  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have therefore asked David Bell to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Teacher Work Load
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the School Teachers' Review Body's special review of approaches to reducing teacher work load. [55341]

  Mr. Timms
  The report I commissioned from the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) on approaches to reducing teacher work load has been laid before Parliament and is available in the Vote Office. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for their work on this important report.

  I asked the review body to produce this report because I want to make sure teachers have the time and support to do what they do best—teach. I welcome the way in which the report has been produced. with careful analysis of all the evidence and opinions from the teaching profession and beyond.

  The report proposes changes that would amount to a major package of reform with substantial implications for both Government and the teaching profession. I shall now hold a full consultation, running until 3 July. In addition, I shall be looking to the School Workforce Remodelling Working Party that I set up in January to consider carefully the report and give me its views. I want to hear every side of the debate before we move forward and I consult further on practical measures.

DEFENCE

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. [39202]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1137–38W.

  Army Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimate is of the number of cases affected by the mistaken taxing of certain categories of Army pensions; and what he estimates the costs of putting this right will be. [37848]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: As regards the numbers of individuals affected by the tax error, our latest assessment remains that which I gave to the hon. Member on 26 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1136–37W. Our latest estimate of the cost to refund affected individuals similarly remains that which
  I gave to the hon. Member on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 8–9.

  Complaints
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were registered against his 176W
  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 ombudsman in those periods. [51589]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 April 20021]: Information on the total number of complaints registered against the Ministry of Defence is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on complaints submitted to the parliamentary ombudsman is contained in the ombudsman's annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House or on the ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the £950 million provided for defence since 11 September 2001 has been spent. [52361]

  Mr. Hoon
  The additions to the defence budget in 2001–02 from the reserve cover a number of heads, including the £;252 million for the campaign against international terrorism. Final outturn figures for expenditure in 2001–02 are not yet available, but they are expected to show that most of the sum to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred in his Budget speech has been spent in that year.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when aircraft designs for the A400M will be finalised; when contracts for the A400M will be signed off; when production of the A400M will start; and if he will make a statement on the A400M. [53418]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contract for the development and production of the A400M was signed on 18 December 2001, but its activation was subject to the German Government obtaining Bundestag funding approval. This was achieved in late March. The participating nations are in the process of implementing a jointly agreed mechanism designed to activate the contract at the earliest opportunity.

  We expect that design work on the A400M will be completed by mid 2005. However, the progressive completion of the design will allow the manufacture of some major components to begin in 2004. Assembly of the first A400M aircraft is expected to begin in 2006.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether personal letters from lords-lieutenant to him are (a) treated officially and (b) delegated to junior ministers; [52340]

  (2) if he will make a statement with regard to his policy on personally replying to letters from (a) privy councillors, (b) other hon. Members, (c) royalty, (d) lords-lieutenant and (e) others; [52341]

  (3) if it is his policy to reply personally to letters addressed personally to him by lords-lieutenant of counties. [52339]
  177W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: It is common practice for the Secretary of State for Defence to respond to letters addressed personally to him from members of the royal family and Members of Parliament who are fellow Privy Councillors. Letters from other hon. Members would normally be delegated to the responsible junior Minister for reply, although there will be some exceptions to this rule. Similarly, letters from Her Majesty's lords-lieutenant would normally be delegated to the responsible junior Minister or his private secretary. Letters from others will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Most will receive an official response, but some will receive a response from a Minister or one of his private secretaries.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with front-line commanders about the effects of medical limitations on their ability to deploy troops with particular reference to manning levels in the Defence Medical Services. [53873]

  Dr. Moonie
  The provision of appropriate levels of medical support to British forces is an integral element of operational planning. I am briefed regularly on operational issues.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will (a) complete and (b) publish the Medical Manning and Retention Review; which outside organisation and individuals he will consult in the preparation of the review; and if he will make a statement. [53800]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 April 2002, Official Report, column 425W. The outcome of the review will be announced in due course. The review team includes an independent human resources consultant and we are also consulting the NHS, which is providing an adviser to the team, the Department of Health, the Office of Manpower Economics, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association.

  Pensions
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many widows of Royal Air Force service men have been affected by his Department's error in deducting tax wrongly from their pensions; [54163]

  (2) how many (a) disabled ex-service men and (b) disabled ex-service women in the Royal Air Force have been affected by his Department's error in deducting tax wrongly from their pensions. [54164]

  (3) how many widows of Royal Navy servicemen have been affected by his Department's error in deducting tax wrongly from their pensions; [54319]

  (4) how many disabled ex-service (a) men and (b) women formerly in the Royal Navy have been affected by his Department's error in deducting tax wrongly from their pensions; [54321]

  (5) what the total cost will be of the refund to disabled ex-servicemen formerly in the RAF and Royal Navy because of the error made by his Department in deducting tax wrongly from their pensions; [54320]
  178W
  (6) for how many years his Department has known about its error in deducting tax from the pensions of disabled ex-servicemen formerly in (a) the Royal Navy and (b) the Royal Air Force. [54322]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The potential for the issue of mistaken taxation of service invaliding pensions to apply to the Royal Navy and RAF as well as the Army was identified only very recently. Work is continuing to identify the extent of the error and I am therefore unable at present to provide numbers of affected RN and RAF pensioners. The total cost of the tax refunds to be paid will not be known until this work has been completed. No widow(er)s are directly affected as all widow(er)s' pensions under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme are taxable, regardless of whether their spouse was in receipt of an attributable pension. Some may, however, be affected indirectly as beneficiaries of a pensioner's will.

  Overnight Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what regulations it is permissible for non-service personnel to be given overnight accommodation at MOD bases; who has to agree to the stay; what notice has to be given; what notification must be given to security services; and if he will make a statement. [54263]

  Dr. Moonie
  Certain non-service personnel may be accommodated on Ministry of Defence bases in view of their duties or connection with the MOD, by authority of Defence Council Instructions. Commanding officers also have discretion to allow personnel to invite non-service personnel to stay in MOD accommodation, and to apply suitable rules. No requirements for periods of notice, or notification to the security services, are laid down centrally. Guests are registered with the MOD base authorities, generally by signing in at guardrooms or reception points.

  Terrorism
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the second report of the Defence Committee, HC 348, on the threat from terrorism. [54165]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's response to the Committee's report was published on 7 March 2002 (HC 667). Work on the "New Chapter" to the Strategic Defence review is continuing. I expect to be in a position to publish some conclusions in the late spring or early summer.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests (Compensation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compensation claims made by former service men in respect of exposure to radiation in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. [54213]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have every confidence in the independent studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund that showed veterans' participation in the nuclear test programme has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently grounds do
  179W
  not exist for compensation to be paid to British nuclear test veterans or their surviving spouses and families. There are no plans to review this position.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the President of the Western European Union; and what issues were discussed. [54629]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Private Gray
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 24 April 2002.Official Report, column 260W, when his Department was informed by Surrey police of the re-opening of the investigation into Private Gray's death; what the terms of the investigation are; what his Department's involvement in the investigation is; and if he will make a statement. [54811]

  Dr. Moonie
  Surrey police informed the Ministry of Defence of their intention to reinvestigate the death of Private Gray on 30 April 2002. This followed their meeting with the family of Private Gray the previous day. The terms of the investigation are a matter for the Surrey police, who have stated that no further information will be released until their inquiries are complete. The Surrey police investigation team is fully independent of the MOD, although the Army will co-operate fully with the investigation as required.

  War Cemeteries
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002, to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson),Official Report, column 166W, on war cemeteries, if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the French Ministry of the Interior concerning plans to build on a war cemetery for a new Paris airport. [54881]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is an independent Commonwealth organisation governed by Royal Charter. As it is not a British Government Department I am unable to place copies of correspondence between the Commission and the French Government in the Library.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to use SHAPE military experts for planning a Turkish-led ISAF in Kabul. [54837]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from his (a) Turkish and (b) EU counterparts regarding the possibility of using SHAPE's military experts for planning a Turkish-led ISAF; and if he will make a statement. [54836]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not receive any representations from my Turkish or EU counterparts on this subject.
  180W
  I am not aware of any recent requests from Turkey for NATO operational planning assistance, nor of this prospect having been raised in EU circles. However, should a request be received for planning support, this would be considered on its merits.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions need to be met by his Department prior to Turkey agreeing to lead ISAF in Kabul. [54838]

  Mr. Hoon
  Turkey formally announced on 29 April its willingness to take over the leadership of the ISAF. Wide-ranging discussions have taken place, and continue, between Turkey, the US, the UK and others on the practical steps that will be needed to implement this decision. These include the support that may be needed from the UK, as the current lead nation, before during and after the handover of responsibility to Turkey.

  Fluorescent Particle Trials
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, columns 535–36W, on fluorescent particle trials, if he will place in the Library the conclusions of the subsequent defence trials involving simulant organisms referred to; what assessment he has made of the implications of the impact of the trials on human health; and if he will make a statement. [54343]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The trials were undertaken to assess the performance of developmental and in-service protective equipment and detection systems. I am withholding the conclusions in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information, relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Defence Analytical Service Agency
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Quinquennial Review of the Defence Analytical Service Agency will take place. [55339]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Quinquennial Review (QQR) of the Defence Analytical Service Agency (DASA) will begin this month, though some preliminary work is already under way. The aim of the review is to examine how DASA has performed since the previous QQR in 1997 and to recommend what measures should be taken in order to reinforce the agency's delivery of cost-effective services to its customers and to ensure that effective use is made of its statistical expertise and other human resources.

  The review will proceed in two phases. First, a number of "framework" issues will be examined, including whether DASA is best placed as a Next Steps Agency within the Ministry of Defence to exploit its full potential and whether existing governance arrangements require adjustment. The report of this first phase of the review is expected by the end of May.

  Second, the review will address, in the light of the answers to the "framework" issues, a number of questions concerned with the operating efficiency of DASA, including the development of a more appropriate relationship between other providers of statistics within Government and a review of the current organisational configuration to ensure that it is best placed to meet

  181W
  customer requirements both now and in the future. The report of this second phase of the review is expected at the end of August.

  The review will be carried out by a small team, which will consult closely with D ASA management and other stakeholders, including DASA's customers. The MOD is interested also to hear the view of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions to:

  DASA QQR Team

  Room 30, St. Giles Court

  St. Giles High Street

  London WC2H 8LD.

  Medical Categories (Army)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army are in the medical categories (a) FE, (b) FT, (c) LE, (d) LT, (e) BE, (f) BT, (g) HO, (h) HO (UK), (i) HONI and (j) HO (UK) NI; in each case what percentage of (i) establishment and (ii) actual manning this represents; and if he will make a statement. [54131]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Details of UK Trained Army Personnel (UKTAP) in the specified medical categories are shown in the table. This excludes Gurkhas and Full-Time Reserve Service Personnel for which this information is not centrally held.

  Strength of UKTAP by Pulhheems employment standard (PES) as at 1 April 2002

  Total number

  Liability (percentage)

  Strength (percentage)

  FE

  86,214

  82·96

  89·33

  FT

  5

  0·00

  0·01

  LE

  7,356

  7·08

  7·62

  LT

  1

  0·00

  0·00

  BE

  11

  0·01

  0·01

  BT

  0

  0

  0·00

  HO

  850

  0·82

  0·88

  HO(UK)

  165

  0·16

  0·17

  HONNI

  587

  0·56

  0·61

  HO(UK)(NNI)

  31

  0·03

  0·03

  Liability (MPT)

  103,926

  Strength

  96,507

  It should be noted, however, that the above categories do not give a complete picture as there are a number of other categories for which details have not been requested.

  Of the above categories, only Forward Everywhere has no restrictions placed upon it. This does not, however, mean that personnel in the other categories are non-effective. Many categories restrict only the locations that personnel may be posted to or the type of work they may undertake. Pregnancy is obviously a prime example of this situation, and it should be noted that the non-FE figure for women is currently much higher than for men.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) men and (b) women are serving in the Territorial Army. [54692]
  182W
  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 April 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,663 personnel, including those mobilised in support of operations. Of these, 32,473 were male and 7.190 female.

  Medical Treatment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to make the short-term measure announced in December 2000 temporarily to supplement NHS treatment of armed forces personnel with private provision into a permanent policy; and if he will make a statement.
  [54129]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to my answer of 9 January 2001, Official Report, column 482W to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in which I referred to contracts having been placed with private sector providers to help return personnel to fully deployable status. We have continued to fund a limited amount of private health care treatment, where this is justified, under central and local arrangements. For the long term, in announcing recently the outcome of the quinquennial review of our medical agencies on 11 April 2002, Official Report, columns 556–57W, we stated that while developing and strengthening our relationship with the NHS, we would also make use of private sector healthcare providers as necessary.

TREASURY

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the expenditure of his (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26991]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the levels of sickness absence were in each of the last three years in (a) Customs and Excise as a whole and (b) each division and regional collection of the VAT and Excise sections. [53479]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average number of working days lost per person due to sickness absence within HM Customs and Excise are detailed in the table.

  Calendar year

  Average working days lost

  31 December 1999

  9·6

  31 December 2000

  9·0

  The information for the calendar year to 31 December 2001 is due to be published later this year by the Cabinet Office.

  The data cannot be provided for VAT or Excise on a divisional or regional basis as it is not available in this format.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54412]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury has a secondee from the Countryside Agency to advise on the Treasury's role in rural policy and to inform Treasury evaluation of how best to deliver Government objectives for rural areas through the spending review. These objectives and associated targets are set out in the White Paper "Our countryside: the future".

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department will have rural proofing embedded in policy-making procedures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54433]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury is rural proofing policy. It has employed a secondee from the Countryside Agency to work across the Department on the Treasury's role in rural policy as one of a number of cross cutting issues that include sustainability. The result has set the basis for examining the rural dimension of spending review 2002 and for informing future policy development. The Treasury is currently evaluating what further steps are necessary to consolidate this work and to set a framework for the Department to take it forward from 2003 on.

  Terrorist Suspects
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 541W, on terrorist suspects, if he will identify the individuals and organisations referred to in the assets freeze list published by the G7 Finance Ministers. [54509]

  Ruth Kelly
  The individuals and organisations listed by the G7 Finance Ministers on 20 April 2002 are:

  Es Sayed, Abdelkader Mahmoud;

  Abu Hamza, al-Masri;

  Ben Heni, Lased;

  Aouadi, Mohamed Ben Belgacem;

  Bouchoucha, Mokhtar;

  Charaabi, Tarek;

  Essid, Sami Ben Khemais;

  The Aid Organisation of the Ulema.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the OFT to investigate the change in insurance premiums in areas at risk from flooding since autumn 2000. [54427]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have no plans to request the OFT to investigate price changes for insurance in areas at risk of flooding since autumn 2000. The Government are in discussion with the insurance industry with the mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood cover remains available as widely as possible. It would be for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide whether to investigate if a case were presented.

  Smuggling
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the percentage of (a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) cannabis that escaped detection and was imported into the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [54818]

  Mr. Boateng
  No accurate estimates are currently available.

  Money Laundering Terrorist Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what extra expenditure is planned this year, and in which Departments and agencies of Government, to tackle (a) money laundering and (b) the financial supports for terrorism. [45748]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  A full answer is not available in the form requested, partly because expenditure on activities against money laundering and terrorist financing are not always separately identified and partly because budgets for 2002–03 are in some cases not yet finalised. I can however provide the following information. Information about expenditure for the National Criminal Intelligence Service has been included although it is not a Government agency.

  The Government have made £18 million available this year and £21 million next year to meet the costs of establishing the Assets Recovery Agency expected to be created by the Proceeds of Crime Bill currently going through Parliament, and related costs. As part of the budget settlement for counter terrorism in 2002–03 £1 million has been provisionally earmarked for tracking terrorist finances. This will provide funding for a multi-agency unit based at the National Criminal Intelligence Service supported by additional investigative capacity at the Metropolitan police service.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has obtained £85,000 from the Recovered Assets Fund for a project on the training of prosecutors across the criminal justice system in implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which includes new money laundering offences.

  The Department for International Development is increasing support for anti-money laundering activities in 2002–03, including:
  funding the Executive Secretary post of the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (£70,000 per year for three years):
  co-funding with the European Union an anti-money laundering technical assistance programme for 10 countries in east and south-east Asia (£700,000 over three years);
  funding the Secretariat of the Egmont Group of financial intelligence units (hosted by the United Kingdom National Criminal Intelligence Service) (£75.000 per year for two years). Department for International Development will supplement this support with funds for a training post at the National Criminal Intelligence Service dedicated to developing training materials relevant to developing countries and countries in transition (estimated £150,000 per year for three years).

  In financial year 2002–03 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has ring-fenced £250,000 from its Drugs and Crime Fund to provide technical assistance to combat money laundering in countries which are the

  185W
  greatest threat to the United Kingdom's financial system. This represents an increase of over 10 per cent. over the previous financial year.

  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has increased the staffing of its Economic Crime Unit, which handles (inter alia) reports from financial and other institutions of transactions suspected to represent money laundering, from 44 staff in January 2001 to 66 staff in December 2001 with a further increase of up to 20 staff planned for 2002–03.

  Customs and Excise will be implementing the new regulatory regime for money service businesses (bureaux de change, money transmission agents and third party cheque cashiers). This requires all affected businesses to register by 1 June this year. The resourcing levels for this regime are still to be finalised, but it is estimated to be about 40 staff years per annum.

  Taxation (Millionaires)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many millionaires in the United Kingdom had a nil tax contribution in 2000–01. [54844]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on tax liabilities analysed by the total wealth of living individuals is not available. A declaration of total assets is required only for inheritance tax purposes and the estimate of millionaires given in the reply to my hon. Friend on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 540W, was based on inheritance tax statistics.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter to him dated 2 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. I. Hesketh. [55002]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Master Franchise
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 695W, on trading scheme exemptions, whether her Department determines that an individual or a company is operating a UK master franchise in a trading scheme via inspection of the contract between (a) the franchisor and the UK master franchise and (b) the UK master franchise and its franchisees; and if she will make a statement. [54507]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 May 20021]: The Department does not routinely inspect trading scheme contracts or advise individuals on them.

  Schemes will vary but the precise nature of the contractual arrangements concluded between scheme members will be a relevant factor in the application of regulatory controls in any given case.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether her Department has 186W
  carried out an assessment of the impact on the textile industry in the UK of the worldwide economic downturn since 11 September; [53237]

  (2) what action her Department has taken to support the textile industry in the UK since 11 September. [53238]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The Department has made no specific assessment of the impact of the events of 11 September on the textile industry. However, we continue to work closely with the industry's own Textile and Clothing Strategy Group (TCSG) to help to improve the industry's productivity and competitiveness, a process which has been in place since before the events of 11 September. The Government have provided more than £80 million to the industry since 1997, and in the last year alone, spent close to £8 million on encouraging innovation within the industry by developing the technical textiles market, developing supply chain and design skills, promoting the benefits of e-commerce and providing export support and education and training opportunities.

  My officials maintain an on-going dialogue with the industry and keep in close contact with regional bodies including the devolved Administrations, industry representative organisations such as the British Apparel and Textile Confederation (BATC), and textile and clothing companies as well as the TCSG.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what (a) surplus and (b) deficit was passed to the Exchequer in the form of Government receipts during the course of the ECGD's trading activities in each of the last five years. [54362]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following surpluses were passed to the Exchequer in the form of Government receipts by ECGD during financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01. The figures for 2001–02 have not been included as these have yet to be audited.

  Extra receipts (£)

  1997–98

  469,871,250·17

  1998–99

  384,676,457·08

  1999–2000

  147,698,759·97

  2000–01

  226,905,795·70

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by the administration section of the Export Credits Guarantee Department under code B4 (Grant and transfers: current) in the appropriation accounts on recruitment costs in the last five financial years; how much was paid to each recruitment company; what position was recruited for in each year; and if she will make a statement. [54359]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of amounts of money paid to individual companies are commercially confidential. I have listed in the table ECGD's total spend on recruitment for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01, the names of the recruitment companies employed by ECGD in those years and ECGD's total recruitment in the same period. Figures for 2001–02 have not been included as these have yet to be audited.
  187W

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Recruitment spend (£)

  106,243·34

  145,001·24

  69,516·11

  146,857·57

  Recruitment companies

  Capita Business

  Barclay Simpson Associates

  Barclay Simpson Associates

  Barclay Simpson Associates

  Datatech Search and Selection

  Capita Business Services

  Capita Business Services

  Capita RAS Ltd· (ex RAS)

  Reed Staffing Services

  Chambers Professional Recruitment

  Capita RAS Ltd· (ex RAS)

  Carr Lyons Search and Selection

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Chambers Professional Recruitment

  Reed Staffing Services Ltd·

  ECGD recruitment

  Administrative grades

  16

  17

  13

  7

  Executive grades

  22

  21

  —

  24

  Management grades

  3

  3

  —

  1

  Senior civil service

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Specialist (eg legal/operational research)

  —

  —

  3

  6

  MOX Fuel Shipment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date she expects the ships carrying the faulty MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield to enter UK territorial waters. [53139]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is an operational matter for the companies and agencies concerned. Detailed information about the timings and routes for transports of nuclear materials is not disclosed publicly for security reasons.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional security measures have been ordered for the return of the faulty MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield as a result of the events of 11 September 2001. [53140]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government keep security requirements for transports of nuclear materials under regular review. The Government are satisfied that the security arrangements for the transport of MOX from Japan to the United Kingdom are amply robust to deal with any potential threats. In addition, the Government of the United States have confirmed to the Government of Japan that arrangements for transporting the fuel from Japan to the United Kingdom, including the security measures in place, are consistent with the terms of the bilateral agreement on nuclear co-operation between the United States and Japan.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department in the last 12 months; and what plans she has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made. [47945]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department's agencies operate their own complaints procedures. Individual payments resulting from complaints are a matter for the agency chief executives within the
  188W
  limits of their financial delegations and in consultation with the Department as appropriate. I have asked the chief executives to respond to the hon. Member on any such payments made within the last 12 months.

  Letter from Chris de Grouchy to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsman in the last 12 months.
  The Radiocommunications Agency has made no payments to individuals, as there have been no such investigations within the last year.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  Further to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to your named day parliamentary question 2001/3729 about payments following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen, in the year ended 27 March 2002 The Insolvency Service, one of the DTI's agencies, made 24 payments totalling £27,280.87 after receiving complaints under its complaints procedure and otherwise.
  Of these, 1 payment for –75 was made following the notification of a complaint by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  Complaints were not notified by any other ombudsman.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 27 March 2002 to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department in the last 12 months; and what plans she has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The Employment Tribunals Service has made no payments in the last 12 months following findings of ombudsmen; and there are no plans currently to review the awards that can be made.
  189W
  Letter from Peter Bentley to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Small Business Service, since our Chief Executive, David Irwin, completed his secondment to SBS on 28 March, and our new Chief Executive, Martin Wyn Griffith, does not start until 15 April.
  There have been no findings of maladministration against the Small Business Service.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question 3729 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry relating to payments made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen in the last 12 months.
  The Patent Office operates its own complaints procedure. Although this procedure gives no automatic right to compensation individuals may be compensated where there is evidence of errors or omissions by Patent Office staff or procedures. In the year 2001–02 a total of £15,000 was made in ex gratia payments. This represented payment on 29 cases out of a total of 70,000 patent, trade mark and design applications processed in the same period.
  No maladministration payments relating to cases involving the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) have been made in the last 12 months.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about payments that have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsman in the last 12 months.
  NWML has not made any payments of this type.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 May 2002:
  I refer to your Parliamentary Question 2001/3729. I have been asked to respond for Companies House for which the answer is that there have been no such payments.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in (a) her Department's vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54709]

  Ms Hewitt
  The net losses reported to Treasury as relating to fraud or thefts totalled £18,137 for 1999–2000 and £54,490 for 2000–01. All of these fell to vote 1.

  None of these were attributed to corruption.

  Military Exports (Israel)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many SIELs have been issued, and in what categories, for military exports to Israel since 18 February; and if she will make a statement. [54127]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Between 18 February and 22 April 2002 18 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering items on the Military List where the end user is Israel. Individual export licences might cover a range of items with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the totals for all the relevant ratings. Details are set out in the table.190W

  Rating

  Number of SIELs

  ML1

  1

  ML4

  4

  ML5

  2

  ML9

  2

  ML10

  2

  ML11

  3

  ML15

  3

  ML18

  1

  All export licence applications to Israel are assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the application. This means that we will not issue export licences where to do so would be in contravention of the consolidated criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the items might be used in internal repression, international aggression, adversely effect regional stability or prolong internal conflict.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees in (a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. [32327]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: None in my Department. I have asked agency chief executives to reply to the hon. Member. Information on non-departmental public bodies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Barry Maxwell to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question, for the number of her employees who have or have had private medical insurance provided for them since 1997–98.
  I am sorry you have had to wait so long for a reply. 1 am writing now to say that, as with DTI, the answer is none.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question on how many employees have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98 and what the total cost is.
  The Insolvency Service does not have any employees who have had medical insurance provided for them.

  Letter from Peter Bentley to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Small Business Service, since our Chief Executive, David Irwin. completed his secondment on 28 March and our new Chief Executive, Martin Wyn Griffith. does not start until 15 April.
  No staff in the Small Business Service have had private medical insurance provided for them since it was founded in April 2000.
  191W
  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the number of employees at NWML who have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98.
  No member of staff at NWML has had private medical insurance provided for them in the period specified.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  RE: Private Medical Insurance
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 30 January 2002 to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking how many employees in (a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–8; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  No employees in ETS have had private medical insurance provided for them in any year since 1997–8.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  I refer to your named day Parliamentary Question 2001/2501. I have been asked to respond for Companies House. The answer to your question is none.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. David Laws, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question 2501 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the provision of private medical insurance to employees of the Patent Office.
  The Patent Office does not provide, or contribute to, private medical insurance for Patent Office employees.

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact her Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54336]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: During the last five years, businesses in the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency have received over £148,000 investment via the enterprise grant scheme and SMART/SPUR awards on capital investment of over £;600,000. This has contributed, along with other Government policies and the work of Government agencies such as the Small Business Service, to a 38 per cent. fall in the number of unemployment benefit claimants in the constituency since May 1997. Constituents will also have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage, which has helped an estimated 230,000 people across the northwest region.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about increased powers which the Export Control Bill will give to her to ensure that exported arms are not used for purposes of which the Government does not approve. [54905]
  192W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The Export Control Bill provides new powers allowing for the imposition of controls on trade from one overseas country to another, intangible technology transfers and the provision of technical assistance overseas. The Bill allows for these controls to be imposed in relation to military, paramilitary and dual-use goods or technology. The new powers will be used to strengthen the UK's domestic export control law, which at present allows only for controls of tangible exports from the UK. In particular, the new power on trade in controlled goods will he used to introduce controls on trade in all military equipment already subject to export control, and also to control, and in effect prohibit, trade in arms to embargoed destinations and trade in equipment used for torture to any destination.

  The Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, as announced to Parliament on 26 October 2000, will continue to he the basis for licence decision-making under the Export Control Bill. Before taking a decision on an export licence under the Consolidated Criteria, Ministers take into account all reliable information about end-users of potential concern, including reporting from other Government Departments and UK posts overseas. The Government will not issue a licence where there is a clear risk that the equipment could be used for internal repression or international aggression, or where there is an unacceptable risk of diversion.

  Broadband/Highband
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings her Department (a) has had and (b) is planning to have with the DTLR regarding the impact of the line rental scheme on Government policies to encourage the roll-out of broad band and high band width networks. [54112]

  Mr. Alexander
  Officials in my Department, together with regulators responsible for all the utilities, have met with DTLR on a number of occasions to discuss lane rental, and will continue to meet to monitor the effects of the lane rental pilot schemes which are being implemented in Camden and Middlesbrough and will extend until May 2004.

  The effects of national implementation of lane rental charging on the roll out of broadband and 3G mobile networks will be taken into account in these reviews.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32831]

  Ms Hewitt
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 February 2002, c. 973W]: Unfortunately due to an administrative oversight the replies from the chief executive to the agencies were not given as part of my answer. These now follow.
  193W
  Letter from Barry Maxwell to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question, for a list of the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its Agencies.
  I am sorry you have had to wait so long for a reply, but can now say that the retirement ages for Agency staff are the same as that of the DTI.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the retirement ages that apply to the employees of NWML, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and the Agency's policy on flexible retirement.
  The normal retirement age in NWML is 65 for staff in Band A (covering administrative and support staff). For all other staff (covering staff at range 5 and above) the retirement age is 60. At 1 April 2001 there were 14 staff in Band A and 45 staff above this level.
  Flexible retirement is considered on a case by case basis under certain criteria laid down by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  I refer to your Parliamentary Question 2001/2571. I have been asked to reply for Companies House.
  The retirement age for ranges 1–4 is 65, range 5 and above 60. We have 893 staff in ranges 1–4 and 293 in range 5 and above.

  Letter, from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 31 January 2002 to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The normal retirement age in my agency is 65 years for staff in Band A (covering administrative and support staff). For all other staff (covering staff at range 5—formerly Executive Officer level—and above) the retirement age is 60 years. At 1 April 2001 there were 559 staff in Band A and 150 staff above this level.

  Letter from Peter Bentley to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Small Business Service, since our Chief Executive, David Irwin, completed his secondment to SBS on 28 March and our new Chief Executive, Martin Wyn Griffith, does not start until 15 April.
  The normal retirement age in the Small Business Service is 65 for staff in Band A (covering administrative and support staff). For all other staff (covering staff at range 5—formerly Executive Officer level—and above) the retirement age is 60. At 1 April 2002 there were 61 staff in Band A and 213 staff above this level.
  Please note that staff in the SBS Regional teams work to Government Office terms and conditions and they adhere to the same Retirement policy as their Parent Department. SBS Regional Teams have 37 staff at Band A and 99 Staff above this level.
  194W
  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question 2571 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry relating to retirement ages and policy on flexible retirement.
  The normal retirement age in the Patent Office is 65 in Band A (covering administrative and support staff). For all other staff (covering staff at B1 formerly Executive Officer level—and above) the retirement age is 60. At 1 April 2001 there were 353 staff in Band A and 566 staff above this level.
  Flexible retirement is considered on a case by case basis under the criteria laid down by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Steven Webb, dated 8 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question on the retirement ages that apply to the employees in The Insolvency Service, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each.
  The Insolvency Service does not have delegated authority for retirement policy and so the guidelines are the same as that of the Department of Trade and Industry. The notional retirement age for staff in Band A (administrative and support staff) is 65. For all other staff in Band B and above (formerly Executive Officer level and above) the retirement age is 60. The number of permanent staff in post in The Insolvency Service at 1 April 2001 was 1303 (full time equivalent); of which 580 staff are in Band A and 723 are in Band B and above.
  Flexible retirement is considered on a case by case basis under the criteria laid down by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Damilola Taylor
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the actions that she plans to take as a consequence of the Damilola Taylor case. [54119]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the handling by the prosecution of the boys charged with the murder of Damilola Taylor, to consider whether there are implications for the conduct of future cases and to make recommendations. The DPP will involve HM CPS Inspectorate in the review. The Attorney-General particularly asked the director to examine whether the time has come to introduce a system where, before trial, interviews of certain key witnesses are conducted by the prosecutor in a limited category of cases.

  The review will report to the Attorney-General by mid summer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34167]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of (a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33889]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Chairs of non-departmental bodies

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Joan Harbison
  Appointed 2 August 1999 to 1 August 2002
  Salary £62,789 per annum
  Juvenile Justice Board
  Ms E. Martin
  Appointed 31 July 2000 to 31 July 2002
  Remuneration—£29.38 for up to four hours and £58.77 for over four hours

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Professor S. Brice Dickson
  Appointed 1 March 1999 to 28 February 2002
  Reappointed 1 March 2002 to 28 February 2005
  Salary £57,475 per annum
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Professor Desmond Rea
  Appointed 29 September 2001 to 28 September 2005
  Salary £45,000 per annum
  Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Nuala O'Loan
  Appointed 6 November 2000 to 5 November 2007 Remuneration £77,745 per annum
  Probation Board for Northern Ireland
  Mr. Brian Rowntree
  Appointed 1 December 1998 to 30 November 2004 Remuneration £12,930 per annum
  Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland
  The right hon. Michael Martin
  Appointed 23 October 2000—not time bounded
  Salary nil since post is held ex-officio

  (b) Chairs of commissions
  Parades Commission
  Mr. J. Anthony Holland
  Appointed 19 February 2000 to 31 December 2002
  Salary £50,400 per annum

  (c) Chairs of inquiries
  Bloody Sunday inquiry
  Lord Saville of Newdigate
  Appointed on 19 March 1998 to complete the inquiry
  No salary for the inquiry

  (d) Chairs of agencies
  None.

  (e) Chairs of task forces
  Information on the number, remit and membership of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period between
  196W
  1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000, and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000, covering the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report, "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", was issued in October 2001 and covered the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  For all of the above categories of appointment, information on political affiliation is not collected.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36208]

  Dr. John Reid
  Information on the cost of the Northern Ireland Office website is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of hits received are as follows:

  1997—398,832

  1998—2,655,045

  1999—2,728,304

  2000—3,506,310

  2001—4,959,502.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36168]

  Dr. John Reid
  Details of the Department's (including its agencies, but excluding NDPBs as we do not have access to a breakdown of their expenditure) total expenditure on advertising in each of the last five financial years are:

  1997–98—£1,077,706

  1998–99—£2,466,691

  1999–2000—£695,017

  2000–01—£591,075

  2001–02—£1,201,6231

  1To date. Estimated total = £1,441,173

  Arts
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the arts community there. [36983]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have held meetings on a number of issues with all Northern Ireland Ministers including Michael McGimpsey, Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, since my arrival as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, the Northern Ireland arts community was not an issue specifically discussed at any meetings. The arts is a transferred matter and not, therefore a matter in which I would have great cause to become involved.
  197W
  However, the Northern Ireland Executive, Belfast city council and Imagine Belfast 2008 are currently working on the Belfast bid to become European Capital of Culture in 2008. I believe that Belfast would be an excellent choice for this accolade, and I have offered the assistance of my Department with the bid to promote all aspects of Northern Ireland, including the arts, cultural diversity, tourism, etc. both nationally and internationally.

  Political Dialogue
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to help prevent Northern Ireland becoming what he has termed a "cold house for Unionists"; and if he will make a statement. [37116]

  Dr. John Reid
  We are making every effort to tackle the issue in seeking to bring about political advance under the Belfast Agreement. But it is the responsibility, not just of Her Majesty's Government, but of all who are involved in public life in Northern Ireland, to seek to ensure that all parts of the community in Northern Ireland are able to feel fully at home there.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the official visits to (a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38149]

  (2) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38185]

  Dr. John Reid
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. On an annual basis, the Government have also published the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period during 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published in a similar form to previous years as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The additional information requested on UK travel by Ministers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [40992]

  Jane Kennedy
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report, the Government have committed Departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps.
  198W
  The Northern Ireland Office has begun an equal pay review which will be completed within the time frame stipulated.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41016]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office comply with the Northern Ireland civil service policy on the payment of relocation expenses to staff laid down in the Northern Ireland Civil Service Staff Handbook, Travel and Subsistence section, Chapters 3 and 4.

  Reasonable expenses are reimbursed to Home civil service staff who permanently transfer in accordance with the terms of the Civil Service Management Code and the Northern Ireland Office Terms and Conditions.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not he achieved by the due date. [44816]

  Dr. John Reid
  PSA target 6 states "Continued protection for the community by ensuring that no high risk prisoner escapes and that the number of prison escapes does not exceed three per 1,000 prisoners".

  Targets set in the NI prison service's corporate and business plan 2001–04 are:
  100 per cent. security for top and high risk prisoners;
  99·7 per cent. security for medium and low risk prisoners.

  The second target will not be met in the 2001–02 financial year since there have been three escapes in the medium and low risk prisoner category, which equates to 99.6 per cent. security.

  PSA target 6 will therefore not be met in the 2001–02 financial year.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target is for reducing sickness absence by police officers and civilians in 2001–02; and if he estimates it will be met. [45985]

  Dr. John Reid
  The targets for the financial year 2001–02 for police and civilian staff are 16 days and 12 days respectively. It is unlikely that those targets will he met as the average sickness absences for the year to date are 22.27 days and 14.78 days respectively.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47113]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. On an annual basis, the Government have
  199W
  also published the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period during 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published in a similar form to previous years as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999.

  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.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in (a) 1996£97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46808]

  Dr. John Reid
  The following totals show the cost of running the core Department's press office. (Outside the core it includes only the Northern Ireland Prison Service):

  £

  Total cost

  1996–97

  2,091,547

  2001–02

  11,884,108

  1To date. Full year estimate £1,970,599.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidized employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [49603]

  Dr. John Reid
  No New Deal for Young People staff have been employed by non-departmental public bodies in the last four years.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47195]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Cabinet Office on 10 April 2002,Offical Report, column 49W.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has made a decision on the future of forensic science in Northern Ireland. [55340]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have agreed that the executive agency status of the Compensation Agency should be continued until 31 March 2004. My decision follows the completion of Stage 1 of a quinquennial review which examined the past performance of the agency and other organisational 200W
  arrangements available for the administration of compensation schemes. Stage 2 of the review will look at ways of improving the delivery of services.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 57W, regarding the cost of empty properties, if his Department has owned properties in the last four years that have been empty. [50548]

  Dr. John Reid
  In the last four years the NIO has owned no properties that have been empty.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50405]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information is as follows:

  Civil Servants

  In 2001–02 the NIO pay group had a remit with a headline settlement of 2·9 per cent., and earnings growth of 4·8 per cent., at a cost of £1,040,770.

  The cost of the pay increase in 2002–03 is still being negotiated but it is envisaged that it will be of similar value to 2001–02.

  Prison Officers

  The prison service has been negotiating a two-year award for 2001–03 for prison grades and this has not yet been agreed.

  Petrol Smuggling
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he and his officials have held with their Irish counterparts since July 2001 to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland. [50025]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have not had a meeting with our Irish counterparts but my officials have held three meetings to discuss a range of security issues including organised crime. At one of these meetings fuel smuggling was an agenda item followed by on-going bilateral contacts between officials. Customs officials have also met with their counterparts.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44879]

  Jane Kennedy
  There have been no delays in (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff left the service of her Department and its agencies in the year ended 3I March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many her Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37545]

  Mrs. Liddell
  During the year ended 31 March 2001, 21 staff who had not attained the formal retirement age of 60 left the service of my Department. Those staff either returned to their parent Departments following their loan period or chose to resign. No staff left on early retirement or early severance.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in her Department on 1 January in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39944]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The Department had four press officers on 1 January 2000; four press officers on 1 January 2001; and four press officers on 1 January 2002.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41007]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is currently considering how best to take forward an equal pay review, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39059]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No external advertisements for staff have been placed by my Department in the last 12 months.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42569]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has taken steps to integrate age into equal opportunities policies and is committed to ensuring that there is no unfair discrimination on the basis of age. Action on diversity has and will continue to tackle any negative attitudes towards older staff particularly through the training and development of managers and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics.

  Accessible Documentation
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all documentation provided by her Department is available in formats accessible by the visually impaired. [41988]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My Department is committed to providing information in an accessible form. If information is requested in an alternative format every effort will be made to supply it.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by her and her predecessors since June 1997, stating in each case (a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43384]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  My predecessor had one unpaid special adviser between June 1999 and January 2001. His duties were to provide advice to the Secretary of State across a range of topics within his ministerial responsibilities.

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new measures her Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47321]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My Department's security measures to protect its property from theft or damage are reviewed regularly. No additional measures were required in 2001–02.

  Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the number of subscriptions to (a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by her Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48343]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My Department has no subscriptions to digital television services.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the (a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by her Department. [48342]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: No television licence is required for equipment used for official purposes.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 66W, on appointments, whether the only public appointments she makes are to the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [52865]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Yes.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many digital radios are owned by her Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the (a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52847]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No digital radios have been purchased by my Department.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what new measures her Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47254]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches have been sold in each of the last five years. [54200]

  Mr. Bell
  Sixty-five redundant churches were sold for alternative uses during the period from 1997 to 2001. The annual breakdown is:

  Number

  1997

  19

  1998

  14

  1999

  11

  2000

  9

  2001

  12

  A smaller number was leased or otherwise disposed of for alternative use during the same period.

  The Commissioners' annual report gives details of the uses found for these buildings and is available in the House of Commons Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34373]
  204W
  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Cabinet Office on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 560W.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 261W, on benefit recipients, how many and what proportion of pensioner households are expected to be eligible for (a) pension credit, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit after October 2003. [42565]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the number of pensioner households eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit is not available. For pension credit estimates, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 204W.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved; [44383]

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [44385]

  Mr. McCartney
  Within the Department for Work and Pensions it has been for our separate agencies and businesses to adopt, as appropriate, the Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment guidelines issued in 1998. Detailed information about adherence to these guidelines, and to baselines, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, this Department is fully committed to equal treatment in the conduct of all aspects of its business, be it policy development, staff management, or providing a service to its wide range of customers. Recent reforms to the child support system, bereavement benefits and pension sharing all embrace the principles of equal treatment. Gender is one strand to be considered along with race, disability, age and sexual orientation.

  Data Series
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what new data series separated by (a) gender, (b) race, (c) disability and (d) age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997. [44384]

  Mr. McCartney
  The table shows the information requested for series produced by this Department and published since August 1997 which are split by gender, race, disability or age. Where a series is marked as "ad hoc", the required split is not routinely published but can be provided in response to a specific request.

  Data series produced by the Department for Work and Pensions since August 1997, split by gender, race, disability or age.
  205W

  Date series produced by the Department for Work and Pensions since august 1997, split by gender, race, disability or age

  Figures split by

  Gender

  Race

  Disability

  Age

  National statistics

  Child benefit quarterly statistics1

  Ad hoc

  No

  No

  Yes

  Client group analysis of the population over state pension age (six-monthly)

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Client group analysis: Quarterly bulletin on families with children on key benefits

  Ad hoc

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Client group analysis: Quarterly bulletin on the population of working age on key benefits

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Contributions and qualifying years for retirement pension (annual)

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Disability, care and mobility benefits—Quarterly statistical enquiry2

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Employment zones (six monthly)

  Yes

  Yes

  Ad hoc

  Yes

  Households below average income (annual)

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Income related benefits estimates of take-up

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Individual incomes series (annual)3

  Yes

  Ad hoc

  Ad hoc

  Yes

  Annual local area labour force survey

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  New Deal for Lone Parents (quarterly)

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  New Deal for Young People and Long-term Unemployed People aged 25+ (quarterly)

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Pensioners' incomes series

  Yes

  Ad hoc

  Yes

  Yes

  Quarterly appeal tribunal statistics

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Second tier pension provision (annual)

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Statistical summary (quarterly)4

  Yes

  No

  Partly

  Yes

  Work based learning for adults

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Other data series

  Disability survey (follow up to FRS5)

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  The family and children survey (FACS)6

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  New Deal for 50 plus

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  New Deal for Disabled People

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Neighbourhood statistics

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  1Method of collecting data changed in 1998 to provide significantly more in depth analysis.

  2Invalid care allowance figures were first published after August 1997 and can be split by age and gender only. Disability living allowance/ attendance allowance figures can also be split by disability but were published prior to August 1997.

  3Race/disability-sample size are generally too small unless 4† years data used.

  4The statistical summary provides a summary of key DWP national statistics, some give an indication of the level of disability of the customer.

  5FRS means "Family Resources Survey".

  6"The survey collects information on gender, ethnicity, disability and age, although it should be noted that respondents are primarily women between the ages of 18 and 50.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44869]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This Department has a wide range of policies that support work life balance and, in particular, assist those staff with child care responsibilities. It actively supports and encourages the provision of child care for staff throughout the organisation. The provision is mainly in the form of subsidised child care places in nurseries and holiday playschemes.

  Currently, this Department and its businesses sponsor 768 places in nurseries, 19 of which are on-site nurseries. This Department also sponsors 1,972 places in holiday playschemes, many of which have been newly set up in partnership with other organisations and with start-up funding. In addition, some staff receive a direct subsidy where childminding is the preferred type of child care.

  Financial accountability is mainly at local business unit level and so details of the overall costs incurred in providing assistance with child care is not available centrally. Investment in each child care facility is based on a business case which must demonstrate business viability and value for money, as well as providing parents with the type of child care which is most suitable for them.

  Fraud and Error
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent annual estimate is of the accrued amount of benefits overpaid due to (a) customer error, (b) official error and (c) fraud if the cases where there was (i) high and (ii) low suspicion of fraud were well founded. [45252]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our most recent estimate is that the total amount of benefits overpaid due to customer error and official error taken together is around £1 billion and the total amount due to fraud is around £2 billion. These are broad order estimates. They are made up of estimates from the continuously measured benefits (income support and jobseeker's allowance), from National Benefit Reviews and from estimated levels of loss in the unmeasured benefits.

  Estimates of high and low suspicion fraud have been provided for most of the benefits reviewed. The Department has, however, tightened its approach to recording such cases since the earlier reviews of the 1990s and now makes much greater effort to resolve cases either way.

  Further information on the handling of suspicion of fraud in the benefit review process is in The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 2000 to March 2001, Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, a copy of which is in the Library.
  207W
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases there were and what the value of cases was where his Department had deemed that there was (a) high and (b) low suspicion that an overpayment in (i) housing benefit, (ii) jobseeker's allowance and (iii) income support was made due to fraud, but where that suspicion was eventually cleared altogether, in the years (A) 1998–99, (B) 1999–2000 and (C) 2000–01. [45274]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available for housing benefit.

  We do not have complete information on the number of cases in the Area Benefit Review process which were initially thought to be suspicious between 1998 and 2001. However, analysis of the data we hold from this period provides information on the proportions of high suspicion cases resulting in different outcomes. The analysis indicates that 42 per cent. of those initially deemed 'high suspicion' and subjected to a full further investigation, were found not to require or merit a change to benefit in payment. The corresponding proportion by monetary value is 49 per cent. A further 26 per cent. (21 per cent. by value) were found to be fraudulent. In the remaining 32 per cent. of cases (30 per cent, by value) it was not possible to prove that fraud had occurred, but a strong suspicion remained. It is this final category which is reported as high suspicion in the National Statistics reports "The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team, Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance".

  Low suspicion cases are not subjected to further investigation and are not, therefore, liable to be re-categorised. Since October 2001, in order to streamline data collection processes, the Department no longer records low suspicion as the information is of limited value.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50411]

  Mr. McCartney
  In 2001–02 staff within the former Department of Social Security received an overall pay increase of 5·5 per cent., effective from 1 July 2001 and costing some £48·8 million. Recyclable paybill savings of 1·5 per cent. were used to partially fund the pay increase.

  Staff within the former Employment Services Agency received an overall pay increase of 5·5 per cent., effective from 1 July 2002 and costing some £13·4 million. Recyclable paybill savings of 0·7 per cent. were used to partially fund the pay increase.

  Non-departmental public bodies received pay increases in the range 2·5 per cent.- 6·25 per cent. with various settlement dates.

  In 2002–03 there will be a single pay settlement for staff within the Department for Work and Pensions, effective from 1 July 2002. This is subject to negotiation with the trade unions side and details of the settlement are not yet available.

  Mobility Allowance (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the London Borough of Wandsworth are in receipt of the mobility allowance. [53875]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of people in receipt of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance in the borough of Wandsworth on 30 November 2001 was 6,080.

  Carers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which categories of carer will be credited into the state second pension; and for each of those categories, who will be (a) credited automatically and (b) need to make a claim. [54516]

  Maria Eagle
  Carers will qualify for state second pension for each complete tax year they do not work at all, or earn less than the annual national insurance lower earnings limit and they are looking after:a child under age six and get child benefit for that child; or
  an ill or disabled person and are entitled to invalid care allowance or qualify for home responsibilities protection, which they may have to claim.

  All qualifying carers will receive an additional pension from state second pension automatically.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many UK pensioners in receipt of pensions are living abroad, broken down by country of residence. [54464]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table.

  Number of British pensioners in receipt of pensions living abroad: May 2001, by country of residence

  Country

  Number

  All

  853,840

  Australia

  216,870

  Canada

  141,185

  USA

  113,420

  Republic of Ireland

  86,525

  Spain

  42,190

  New Zealand

  35,785

  South Africa

  34,085

  Italy

  28,300

  Germany

  25,705

  Jamaica

  23,230

  France

  17,505

  Cyprus

  7,075

  Pakistan

  5,995

  Netherlands

  5,755

  Other1

  70,215

  1All other countries with individual case load less than 5,000.

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum to overall total due to rounding.

  2. Figures are for GB pensioners excludes NI pensioners.

  Source:
  Matching, Intelligence and Data Analysis Service. May 2001.
  209W
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have personal pension funds. [46918]

  Mr. McCartney
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 April 2002, Official Report, c. 892W]:

  The information is in the table.

  The number of people who have a personal pension

  Million

  Numbers contributing to a personal pension

  4·08

  Numbers receiving income from a personal pension

  0·80

  Total number of people with a personal pension

  4·88

  Notes:

  1. Information is drawn from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for the year 2000–01 and covers Great Britain only.

  2. Due to the size of the FRS sample and the fact that the survey relies on self-reporting of pension income the information may be subject to a margin of error.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the new grant formula that will replace SSA will (a) be improved and (b) address the needs of all classes of authority; [53637]

  (2) what steps he will take to reduce disparity in total external support to local authorities. [53518]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are working to develop options for fairer and more intelligible grant distribution formulae. We will consult on options over the summer and will consider the responses when we come to take decisions.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial impact on parish councils of the 1996 Accounts and Audit Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [54647]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I am aware of the impact that accounting and audit requirements can have on parish councils as a consequence of complying with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996. For this reason, last year we increased the income threshold, below which local councils are subject to the least onerous accounting regime, from £5,000 to £50,000. In addition, the Audit Commission has introduced a new 'lighter touch' audit framework for local councils, with the aim of making the audit process simpler and therefore cheaper. The new regime should result in lower audit costs for most small councils.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to introduce an internal audit requirement for parish councils; and if he will make a statement. [54648]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996 already impose a requirement for parish councils and other authorities to maintain an adequate and effective 210W
  system of internal audit. We plan to consult later this year on proposals aimed at strengthening this requirement by providing for all authorities to follow best practice in carrying out their internal audit role.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out his definition of the amenity grounds on which local authorities may refuse planning applications for mobile phone masts. [54442]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Planning decisions are based upon the land-use merits of each proposal; an assessment must be made of the impact of the proposed development on amenity. Each planning case is likely to have a unique set of relevant facts, and the courts are final arbiters of what is material. The Department's advice on materiality is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG 1), "General Policy and Principles".

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into planning guidance on the siting of mobile phone masts in other member states in the European Union. [54654]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action has been taken to carry out the Stewart report recommendation to appoint an ombudsman to examine decisions on the siting of base stations where there is disagreement at the local level. [54504]

  Ms Keeble
  The Stewart Group's report on mobile phones and health suggested that the appointment of an ombudsman would help with planning decisions on siting of base stations, for example, where agreement could not be reached locally. The Government's response to the report made clear that while the Government are sympathetic to the objectives of the proposal, it feels there are better ways of achieving them, bearing in mind that there is no comparable arrangement in relation to other kinds of development. The role of an ombudsman would not sit comfortably with the existing appeal process within the planning system.

  As regards siting, the Government's view is that the objectives are met by the planning process. When considering applications for new development, local planning authorities consult local people and take their views into account in making decisions. Where an authority refuses an application the developer can appeal to the Secretary of State. Pre-applications discussions with authorities and with local people also have an important part to play, providing opportunities to explore alternative approaches to the siting and appearance of masts.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 172W, on rural housing, what representations he has received on the (a) proposals for a tariff in rural areas and (b) level of such a tariff. [54804]
  211W
  Ms Keeble
  We have received over 500 responses to our consultation on reforming planning obligations. In the consultation we have proposed that planning obligations should take the form of a standardised tariff, set through the local plan process, and to include a contribution towards affordable housing. This could apply in rural as well as urban areas. The consultation document proposes that tariffs would be set by local authorities, subject to safeguards

  We are now in the process of analysing these responses, and expect to publish a policy statement setting out the way forward in the summer.

  Housing capital improvements in the London borough of Redbridge

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Housing investment programme1

  2·335

  1·421

  1·729

  5·930

  3·260

  3·753

  Capital receipts initiative

  0·889

  2·275

  2·081

  —

  —

  —

  Cash incentive scheme

  0·171

  0·158

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Major repairs allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·483

  4·036

  Estate action2

  0·592

  0·934

  0·257

  —

  —

  —

  Disabled facilities grant

  0·488

  0·851

  0·663

  0·663

  0·747

  0·750

  Approved development plan3

  3·749

  4·761

  3·699

  3·612

  4·876

  19·285

  1 Basic Housing ACG

  2Expenditure relates to a single estate action project on the Triptree Estate in Barkingside, which received a total of £4.748m in Estate Action funding from 1993–94 to 1999–2000.

  3 Allocated by the Housing Corporation to registered social landlords.

  Affordable Housing (South-West)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable housing units in (a) south Somerset, (b) Somerset and

  Local authority and registered social landlord affordable housing stock, RTB sales and new build

  Dwelling stock at start of year owned by:

  Activity during year— sales under right to buy

  Activity during year—new dwellings completed

  Net stock change during year

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlords

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlord

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlords

  South Somerset

  1991–92

  10,576

  153

  10,729

  115

  n/a

  24

  0

  24

  10

  13

  23

  1992–93

  10,586

  166

  10,752

  163

  n/a

  0

  46

  46

  -204

  226

  22

  1993–94

  10,382

  392

  10,774

  372

  n/a

  0

  127

  127

  -266

  125

  -141

  1994–95

  10,116

  517

  10,633

  365

  n/a

  0

  56

  56

  -391

  83

  -308

  1995–96

  9,725

  600

  10,325

  183

  0

  0

  71

  71

  -198

  275

  77

  1996–97

  9,527

  875

  10,402

  170

  0

  0

  20

  20

  -283

  152

  -131

  1997–98

  9,244

  1,027

  10,271

  208

  0

  0

  26

  26

  -221

  84

  -137

  1998–99

  9,023

  1,111

  10,134

  195

  1

  0

  90

  90

  -9,023

  9,023

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  10,134

  10,134

  0

  350

  0

  14

  14

  0

  -175

  -175

  2000–01

  0

  9,959

  9,959

  0

  157

  0

  13

  13

  0

  211

  211

  Somerset

  1991–92

  31,607

  1,874

  33,481

  383

  n/a

  94

  79

  173

  -161

  74

  -87

  1992–93

  31,446

  1,948

  33,394

  426

  n/a

  57

  227

  284

  -496

  500

  4

  1993–94

  30,950

  2,448

  33,398

  798

  n/a

  12

  314

  326

  -776

  629

  -147

  1994–95

  30,174

  3,077

  33,251

  702

  n/a

  0

  281

  281

  -706

  534

  -172

  1995–96

  29,468

  3,611

  33,079

  498

  0

  0

  288

  288

  -691

  665

  -26

  1996–97

  28,777

  4,276

  33,053

  427

  1

  0

  230

  230

  -789

  453

  -336

  1997–98

  27,988

  4,729

  32,717

  604

  1

  0

  105

  105

  -2,454

  2,164

  -290

  1998–99

  25,534

  6,893

  32,427

  473

  34

  0

  233

  233

  -9,376

  9,282

  -94

  1999–2000

  16,158

  16,175

  32,333

  391

  410

  0

  236

  236

  -399

  -2

  -401

  2000–01

  15,759

  16,173

  31,932

  339

  187

  0

  92

  92

  -4,529

  4,694

  165

  Housing (Redbridge)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, by project, the total investment in housing capital improvements in the London borough of Redbridge, (a) in each of the past five years and (b) expected for 2002–03. [54117]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on local authorities' and other housing providers' investment in housing capital improvements by project is not held centrally.

  The table sets out Government and Housing Corporation allocations for housing capital improvements in the London borough of Redbridge for the current year, and each of the past five years.

  (c) the south-west region have (i) been sold under right to buy and (ii) been newly built, showing for each category the net change, in each year from 1991 to 2002. [526121

  Ms Keeble
  The available information is presented in the table.
  213W

  Local authority and registered social landlord affordable housing stock, RTB sales and new build

  Dwelling stock at start of year owned by:

  Activity during year— sales under right to buy

  Activity during year—new dwellings completed

  Net stock change during year

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlords

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlords

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Total social landlords

  South West

  1991–92

  273,597

  35,369

  308,966

  3,120

  n/a

  1,096

  1,104

  2,200

  -2,301

  2,111

  -190

  1992–93

  271,296

  37,480

  308,776

  3,087

  n/a

  284

  1,791

  2,075

  -3,785

  5,401

  1,616

  1993–94

  267,511

  42,881

  310,392

  4,230

  n/a

  131

  2,425

  2,556

  -9,960

  11,012

  1,052

  1994–95

  257,551

  53,893

  311,444

  4,133

  n/a

  103

  2,841

  2,944

  -11,033

  8,413

  -2,620

  1995–96

  246,518

  62,306

  308,824

  2,769

  159

  182

  2,889

  3,071

  -14,296

  17,050

  2,754

  1996–97

  232,222

  79,356

  311,578

  2,824

  288

  98

  2,477

  2,575

  -8,486

  8,143

  -343

  1997–98

  223,736

  87,499

  311,235

  3,370

  480

  559

  2,246

  2,805

  -9,604

  8,830

  -774

  1998–99

  214,132

  96,329

  310,461

  3,276

  454

  37

  1,615

  1,652

  -29,900

  27,341

  -2,559

  1999–2000

  184,232

  123,670

  307,902

  3,708

  1,322

  26

  1,589

  1,615

  -14,089

  11,870

  -2,219

  2000–01

  170,143

  135,540

  305,683

  3,157

  945

  23

  1,788

  1,811

  -14,269

  12,308

  -1,961

  Notes:

  1. Dwelling stock: Local authority owned dwellings include those outside the authority' geographical area.

  2. RTB Sales: (Local Authority) Sales to sitting tenants under RTB legislation; other sales, transfers and disposals are reflected under "net stock change". (Registered Social Landlords) RTB data not collected prior to 1995–96.

  3. New dwellings completed: New-build completions as reported by local authorities. Excludes acquisitions of existing stock and "off-the-shell' purchases of private developments.

  4. Net stock change: Calculated as the year-on-year change in reported dwelling stock each April. This reflects all gains and losses arising from sales, transfers and disposals (eg under LSVT arrangements), new construction, acquisitions, conversions and demolitions.

  Source:
  DTLR Housing Investment Programme returns (annual), P1 B returns (quarterly), P2 returns (monthly), Housing Corporation CORE returns

  Public Services
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that district authorities have the flexibility to fund and deliver high-quality public services to local people. [53636]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Alan Whitehead) to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 26W.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether the Government will provide legally binding guarantees to support the finance raised by Metronet and Tube Lines; [54286]

  (2) what the maximum amount of financial support for the PPP contractors is that is covered by letters of comfort from the Government. [54284]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 18W and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 18 April 2002, Official Report, column 1107W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many underground stations will be improved up to 2009; and how many were planned to be improved in the original PPP proposal. [54289]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The PPP is designed to improve the quality, reliability and capacity of every underground line in a coordinated programme to modernise the entire tube network. Details of the contractual requirements are a214W
  matter for London Underground, but I understand that more than 200 stations will be improved by 2009. This is in line with the original objectives for the PPP.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the final safety case for the London Underground PPP to be completed. [54283]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No timetable or deadline has been set by the Government. The HSE will take the time it needs.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what capacity increases the PPP scheme will lead to during the first seven and a half years of operation. [54288]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The PPP is designed to improve the quality, reliability and capacity of every underground line in a co-ordinated programme to modernise the entire tube network. Details of the contractual requirements are a matter for London Underground, but I understand that during the first seven and a half year contract period projects to increase the capacity of the Jubilee, Central and Waterloo and City lines will be completed.

  In addition, work to increase the capacity of the Victoria, Northern, Hammersmith and City, Circle and Metropolitan lines will be well under way, including the introduction of new signalling and new trains on some lines. Further capacity increases will follow during the second seven and a half year contract period.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rights the PPP providers have to withdraw from the contracts at the end of the first seven and a half year period. [54290]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of the contracts are a matter for London Underground, but I understand they do not provide infrastructure companies with a unilateral right to withdraw from the contracts at the end of the first seven
  215W
  and a half year period and that London Underground has a range of contractual rights to ensure the contract continues if it wishes.

  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with plans for modernisation of the London Underground. [55052]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been advised by the board of London Regional Transport that London Underground Ltd. has today signed public-private partnership contracts to modernise and maintain London Underground's infrastructure.

  There are three contracts, which will each run for 30 years. Those for two of the infrastructure companies will go to Metronet, and the third to the Tube Lines Group.

  In my statement to the House on 7 February I set out why the Government supported London Transport's decision that it was minded to proceed with the tube modernisation plans. The Government have consistently set out three key tests that the plans must pass if they are to proceed: that they are not a privatisation; that they should offer value for money: and that they should be safe for both passengers and staff.

  I am satisfied that the modernisation plans are not a privatisation. The ownership of the assets, and the operation of the public service, stay in the public sector. It is also likely that the assets will continue to be scored on London Underground's balance sheet, in the public sector.

  I am also satisfied that the arrangements offer value for money, when judged against alternative proposals. At my request, Ernst and Young reviewed London Underground's original value for money assessment and confirmed that, overall, London Underground's methodology for assessing value for money was robust, and that London Underground's recommendation that the PPP proposals deliver value for money, while subjective, was supported by its analysis. Since then, Ernst and Young has reviewed the work done by London Underground to update the value for money assessment in respect of material changes to the contracts. They confirmed that London Underground's approach was consistent with that used for the previous report. I have placed a copy of their update in the Library of the House.

  The Health and Safety Executive has still to reach a final judgment on London Underground's revised Railway Safety Case. The position therefore remains that the tube modernisation plans will only proceed if the independent regulator accepts the safety arrangements for both passengers and staff.

  Subject to approval of the safety case, I share London Regional Transport's belief that the modernisation plans are the right solution and offer significant benefits for Londoners.

  Fares will continue to be set by the Mayor of London. The modernisation plans do not require fares to rise faster than inflation.

  The three contracts are intended to take effect by the summer. I notified Parliament on 20 March that I was considering issuing a comfort letter in support of each of
  216W
  the contracts. My intention is that such comfort letters should be issued shortly before the transactions are completed.

  London Regional Transport's decision has been taken in the light of an extensive consultation with Transport for London, London Regional Transport has accepted some of the points Transport for London has made, and made changes to the contracts accordingly.

  I fully support the decision taken today by the board of London Regional Transport and look forward to the modernisation plans coming into operation.

  It remains my intention that the ownership of London Underground will be transferred to Transport for London as soon as possible.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations have been received from the Scottish Executive regarding the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. [54822]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is in contact with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues, including the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his latest estimate is of the cost of upgrading the West Coast Main Line (a) North and (b) South of the Scotland/ England border. [54824]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The precise outputs of the West Coast upgrade are currently under review by the Strategic Rail Authority and the key stakeholders. Until the outputs are agreed, estimated costs of the upgrade will not be known.

  Rail Freight Operators
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what protection exists, and whether it is his policy that protection should exist, to protect rail freight operators against increases in track access charges by the rail regulator. [54282]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 901W.

  Deep Sea Ports
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidelines he issues to ensure that planning gain for transport is balanced between rail and road modes when considering the development of deep sea ports. [54604]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's policy paper on ports, "Modern Ports", published in November 2000, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many
  217W
  complaints were registered with each passenger transport authority against bus operators, broken down by name of operator, in each of the last three years. [54265]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Individual passenger transport authorities may, however, be able to provide information about complaints they have received.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total bus subsidies paid in each of the past four years were in (a) urban and (b) rural areas. [54814]

  Ms Keeble
  Data are not collected in the precise form requested. The table summarises the available data on public financial support for local bus services in England.

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Concessionary fares reimbursement by local authorities

  London and metropolitan areas

  286

  289

  289

  301

  Rest of England

  104

  103

  102

  113

  Local authority service subsidies1

  London and metropolitan areas

  99

  121

  119

  209

  Rest of England

  86

  110

  127

  135

  Fuel duty rebate from central Government

  London

  30

  37

  46

  47

  Rest of England

  157

  185

  231

  254

  1 This comprises Revenue Support Grant funding for local authorities, funding from London Transport/Transport for London and expenditure under the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant scheme.

  Note:
  Data on expenditure on fuel duty rebate to bus services in metropolitan areas are not kept separately.

  School Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the law compelling children on school coaches to wear seat belts does not apply to children on double decker buses when those buses are being used for school transport; and if he will make a statement. [53828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The design of many of these bus types makes it technically difficult for them to be fitted with adequate seat belts. Also, the types of passenger journeys on these vehicles are such that the need for belts and the likelihood of their being used are less than on faster long-distance journeys. We would expect the service provider to take into account the type of vehicle and provision of seat belts when specifying the vehicle for the service.

  Bus Security
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will introduce regulations to require bus operators to install and keep in good order bus radio/alarm systems; [54874]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure bus companies provide improved security for bus workers against assault by passengers and other drivers. [54875]
  218W
  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on I May 2002,Official Report, column 815W.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will convene a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee to ensure a co-ordinated approach with the devolved Administrations to prevent assaults on bus workers. [54873]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are committed to raising awareness and addressing the issue of assaults on bus staff through research and good practice guidance for public transport operators and encouraging transport policing initiatives. I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department and the devolved Administrations discuss issues relating to the bus industry, including staff safety and security, when appropriate.

  MI (Services)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he is allowing the rebuilding of the motorway services at junction 15A of the M 1 motorway on a site which would not permit motorway widening without its subsequent demolition. [54826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no present plans to widen the M1 at this point. In any case, while the proposed alterations to the service area do involve the replacement of some existing buildings with new ones, we are satisfied that the changes are likely if anything to make future widening proposals more, rather than less, straightforward to implement.

  M27
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the roadworks on Junctions 2 to 4 on the M27 will be completed; [54845]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in completing the roadworks on Junctions 2 to 4 on the M27. [54846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Sandra Gidley, dated 8 May 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about roadworks on the M27 between Junctions 2 and 4.
  Weather permitting, the works will be completed by the end of June. The delay has been due, in part, to technical difficulties encountered during construction. Drainage through the environmentally sensitive River Test Valley proved more difficult than originally anticipated and to make up the time, the contractor has increased his resources and changed his working methods.

  MOX Fuel Shipment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the approval documents he
  219W
  has issued to British Nuclear Fuels for the transport package which will be used to transport the faulty MOX fuel it supplied to Japan back to Sellafield. [53137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House of that part of the approval document certifying approval of design and shipment.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the approval process for the transport package which will be used to transport the faulty MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield has taken into account whether the package is filled with argon gas or water; and if he will make a statement. [53138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The approval process has taken into account all material within the package.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will implement the recommendations contained in the report, Dangerous Driving and the Law; and if he will make a statement. [54872]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The report raises a number of important points about the operation of the law on dangerous driving. We are considering these with other government departments with a view to reaching conclusions on the report's recommendations as soon as possible.

  Aviation Industry
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make an announcement about the provision of new airport capacity in the south-east. [53925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We intend to publish a consultation paper the outcome of which will inform the Aviation White Paper. which we hope to publish before the end of the year.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage best practice in the types of airport consultation that are required under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. [54505]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The then Department of Transport produced Guidelines for Airport Consultative Committees in December 1987. These stand as the current DTLR advice, and copies are available free on demand. In the `Future of Aviation' consultation, we invited and received various views on whether and how it would be useful to update this guidance, and a decision on this will be taken in due course.

  Specific guidance is also available about airport transport forums and airport surface access strategies (including recommendations on consultation), on the Department's web site.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the implications of the 220W
  practice of foreign airliner wet-leasing by United Kingdom airlines on the economic well-being of the domestic aviation industry; what representations he has received about the practice of foreign airliner wet-leasing by United Kingdom airlines; what proposals he has to introduce regulations to restrict wet-leasing of aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [54690]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Aircraft leasing by UK airlines is governed by European Community law. My Department continuously monitors wet-leasing applications to ensure compliance with Community law, including the requirement that UK airlines do not become excessively dependent on aircraft registered outside the European Economic Area. There are currently eleven passenger and thirteen freighter aircraft wet-leased to UK carriers for periods approaching a traffic season, of which five passenger and eleven freighter aircraft are registered outside the EEA. Five of these aircraft are in process of transfer to the UK register.

  My Department's Transparent Procedures for handling leasing applications include provisions whereby interested parties can make representations about individual applications both to the Civil Aviation Authority and to my Secretary of State. In addition my Department receives regular correspondence on the subject of wet-leasing. I consider that the ability to wet-lease foreign registered aircraft within the constraints of Community law enhances the operational efficiency of UK airlines and contributes to the economic well-being of the UK aviation industry. I have no plans to pursue regulations, which could only be introduced at Community level, to place further restrictions on wet-leasing by UK airlines.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent guidance he has issued to the operators of public service vehicles in relation to reasonable precautions to be taken to ensure safety of passengers after they have entered a vehicle but before they have become seated. [54988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 require bus drivers and conductors (where present) to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of passengers who are on, or who are entering or leaving, the vehicle.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's review of the organisational arrangements for transport safety. [55479]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The review of transport safety was conducted in 1999–2000, in response to important recommendations from the Transport Select Committee. Copies of the report of the review group's analysis and the results of its related consultation were provided to the committee, and put in the Libraries of the House, on 9 June 2000. In a parliamentary reply, that same day, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) advised the House that the Government had concluded that it would be wrong to take a view on possibly fundamental changes to the organisation of transport safety before Ministers had been able to consider the
  221W
  report of the public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash, which was looking among other things at rail safety management, culture and regulation.

  In part two of his inquiry report published in September last year Lord Cullen recommended that a Rail Accident Investigation Branch be established, noting that this would not conflict with a cross-modal accident investigation body if in due course the Government decided one should be pursued. We are very glad to have had the committee's thinking on more integrated arrangements for transport safety, for which there are arguments meriting careful consideration. We have taken the view that the emphasis in the first place should be on getting in place the new Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the new Rail Industry Safety Body. But we will then be returning to the question of new cross-modal safety arrangements, and considering further the views expressed by the committee and by others.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will bring an action against the French Government for their record in observing the free movement of provisions of the treaty of Rome with respect to freight movements through the channel tunnel. [R] [53646]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commission has already invoked the Free Movement of Goods Regulation in this case. We remain in close contact with France and the Commission about action to resolve the problems affecting rail freight traffic through the channel tunnel.

  Planning Appeal, Willaton Work House
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will determine the outcome of the appeal on the Workhouse in Willaton, Somerset. [52474]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided not to confirm the compulsory purchase order on the Willaton Work House, Somerset. A formal decision letter has been issued to Somerset county council and the owners of the building.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Policing Costs (London)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has recently commissioned regarding the costs of policing the London metropolitan area; and what studies he has taken into account relating to cities of similar size abroad. [40284]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I have commissioned no specific research but the Metropolitan police service have recently commissioned research from the London School of Economics to establish a list of major cities world-wide against which the MPS could be benchmarked.

  Government Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1 185–86W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if he will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which (a) the Home Office, (b) the Youth Justice Board and (c) the Probation Service distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51405]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Information on the main grant schemes for Home Office, Youth Justice Board and Probation Service funding to the voluntary sector is detailed as follows.

  (a)Home Office

  Active Community Main Grants

  Capital Modernisation Programme

  Communities Against Drugs Initiative

  Connecting Communities Grant

  Crime Reduction Partnerships

  Crime Reduction Programme

  Drug Testing Pilot

  Drugs Action Team: Development Funding

  Drugs Prevention Advisory Service

  Family Support Grants

  Mentoring Fund

  Organisations for mentally disordered offenders

  Positive Futures

  Race Equality Grant

  Reception and Re-settlement of Refugees

  Reducing Racial Disadvantage Grant

  Secure Training Centres

  Summer Activities Scheme

  Time Limited Development Fund

  UN Drugs Control Programme

  Victim Support Schemes

  (b)Youth Justice Board

  Round 8: Mentoring Help with Numeracy and Literacy

  Dual Bids

  Mentoring Plus for Minority Ethnic Young Offenders

  Round 9: Small Bids for Voluntary Organisations

  Summer Splash Schemes

  (c)National Probation Directorate

  Central Partnership Grants Scheme

  Dangerous Offenders Unit—Project Grant

  Hostels Revenue Grant.

  Criminal Responsibility
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the age of criminal responsibility. [52150]

  Beverley Hughes
  The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10. We need to nip early offending in the bud and reinforce young people's sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour. Timely intervention can make a difference and most young people of that age are mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong, to take responsibility for their behaviour and to cope with the operation of criminal law.
  223W
  The Government's youth justice reforms ensure that young offenders receive appropriate interventions to make them understand and take responsibility for their offending behaviour, and are subject to programmes which directly tackle the causes of their offending.

  Hare Coursing
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish a power of arrest for persons found committing an offence under the Game Act 1831; [52287]

  (2) what plans he has to amend the Game Act 1831 to give police more powers in relation to illegal hare coursing; [52286]

  (3) if he will increase the penalties for illegal hare coursing to over –5,000; [52289]

  (4) if he will establish a power of seizure of vehicles being used by illegal hare coursers. [52288]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no immediate intention to strengthen legislation relating to illegal hare coursing or to increase relevant fines. The police and the courts already have extensive powers and substantial penalties available to them in dealing with this issue.

  (i) The main Home Office (centrally managed, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and managed by Merseyside Management unit)

  Entrants to Department

  Leavers

  Net intake

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  Recruitment

  Other

  Recruitment

  Other

  June 2001

  34

  54

  139

  178

  19

  56

  69

  261

  July 2001

  50

  9

  215

  12

  14

  46

  45

  181

  August 2001

  44

  7

  164

  3

  34

  136

  17

  31

  September 2001

  23

  13

  197

  14

  46

  172

  -10

  39

  October 2001

  10

  11

  145

  3

  16

  60

  5

  88

  November 2001

  6

  6

  107

  5

  20

  55

  -8

  57

  December 2001

  5

  1

  93

  2

  22

  53

  -16

  42

  January 2002

  24

  11

  192

  7

  40

  78

  -5

  121

  February 2002

  51

  10

  182

  11

  38

  85

  23

  108

  March 2002

  27

  5

  185

  3

  58

  142

  -26

  46

  April 2002

  33

  7

  110

  2

  12

  21

  28

  91

  Total

  307

  134

  1,729

  240

  319

  904

  122

  1,065

  Note:
  The word recruitment is used in the strict sense and does not include transfers from other Government Departments, transfer of functions, etc., which are in other.

  (ii)Forensic Science Service

  Entrants to Departments

  Leavers

  Net intake

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  Recruitment

  Other

  Recruitment

  Other

  June 2001

  6

  0

  35

  0

  6

  12

  0

  23

  July 2001

  1

  0

  28

  0

  0

  12

  1

  16

  August 2001

  2

  0

  23

  0

  3

  14

  -1

  9

  September 2001

  8

  0

  61

  1

  5

  20

  3

  42

  October 2001

  5

  1

  28

  1

  5

  11

  1

  18

  November 2001

  0

  0

  15

  0

  5

  12

  -5

  3

  December 2001

  2

  0

  7

  0

  2

  9

  0

  -2

  January 2002

  1

  0

  11

  1

  1

  5

  0

  7

  February 2002

  19

  0

  23

  1

  4

  5

  15

  19

  March 2002

  1

  0

  6

  0

  0

  7

  1

  -1

  April 2002

  11

  0

  7

  0

  3

  4

  8

  3

  Total

  56

  244

  4

  34

  111

  23

  137

  Note:
  The word recruitment is used in the strict sense and does not include transfers from other Government Departments, transfer of functions, etc.. which are in other.
  224W
  Depending upon the exact circumstances the police may be able to arrest alleged offenders and a court may have the capacity to order forfeiture of vehicles used in committing or facilitating an offence.

  Offences relevant to the disorder sometimes associated with illegal hare coursing are contained in the Public Order Act 1986. They include, for example, an offence of intentionally using threatening, abusing or insulting words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress. There is also the more serious offence of violent disorder which carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at (a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52428]

  Angela Eagle
  I am sorry for the delay in replying. For the period June 2001 to March/April 2002 the net additional staff recruited to the Home Office and its agencies in the grades requested are set out in the following tables.
  225W

  (iii) United Kingdom Passport and Criminal Record Agency

  New recruits

  Leavers

  Net intake

  EO grade

  Admin grade

  EO grade

  Admin grade

  EO grade

  Admin grade

  June 2001

  3

  31

  1

  23

  2

  8

  July 2001

  16

  65

  3

  30

  13

  35

  August 2001

  3

  39

  1

  45

  2

  -6

  September 2001

  3

  22

  4

  65

  -1

  -43

  October 2001

  7

  58

  2

  14

  5

  44

  November 2001

  16

  29

  5

  51

  11

  -22

  December 2001

  1

  25

  0

  5

  1

  20

  January 2002

  3

  58

  8

  22

  -5

  36

  February 2002

  2

  65

  3

  15

  -1

  50

  March 2002

  3

  55

  4

  17

  -1

  38

  Total

  57

  447

  31

  287

  26

  160

  (iv) Prison service agency

  Newly recruited

  Leavers

  Net intake

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  EOs

  AOs/AAs

  June 2001

  4

  100

  4

  50

  0

  50

  July 2001

  5

  101

  4

  57

  1

  44

  August 2001

  1

  61

  9

  70

  -8

  -9

  September 2001

  2

  92

  4

  97

  -2

  -5

  October 2001

  1

  80

  4

  45

  -3

  35

  November 2001

  2

  87

  8

  39

  -6

  48

  December 2001

  0

  53

  3

  30

  -3

  23

  January 2002

  2

  93

  8

  58

  -6

  35

  February 2002

  0

  77

  9

  43

  -9

  34

  March 2002

  0

  73

  4

  53

  -4

  20

  Total

  17

  817

  57

  542

  -40

  275

  Note:
  Recruitment would include transfers from other Government Departments, but not from the main Home Office.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the level of street crime in each Metropolitan Police division between January and March in each year from 1997 to 2002. [52334]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The Home Office did not collect borough figures prior to April 1999 and does not publish monthly or quarterly statistics. The Home Office will publish national statistics for the year 2001–02 in the summer in its crime bulletin. The Metropolitan police have already published figures for this period, which are available on its website. The table contains figures for total recorded robberies (including robberies of personal property and business property) in London boroughs for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  The Metropolitan police force area is one of the 10 areas included in the Government's wider street crime initiative, which involves a concerted response to street crime across all the criminal justice and social agencies.

  The 10 Force Street Crime initiative began in April 2002 across the 10 force areas with the biggest robbery problem. The police and criminal justice agencies are working together in these areas to target and fast-track all street crime offenders. The initiative also brings together the resources and expertise of non-criminal justice system agencies to help tackle the causes of street crime and take preventative action.
  226W

  Metropolitan police—total robbery offences by Basic Command Unit (BCU) Financial years 1999–2000 to 2000–01—based on force boundary since 1 April 2000

  Year ending

  BCU

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  514

  731

  Barnet

  876

  1,041

  Bexley

  289

  417

  Brent

  2,014

  1,941

  Bromley

  518

  685

  Camden

  1,645

  1,906

  Croydon

  1,094

  1,568

  Ealing

  1,702

  1,510

  Enfield

  1,013

  1,163

  Greenwich

  471

  469

  Hackney

  2,437

  2,275

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  853

  911

  Haringey

  2,008

  2,340

  Harrow

  607

  559

  Havering

  240

  392

  Heathrow airport

  6

  6

  Hillingdon

  401

  472

  Hounslow

  574

  717

  Islington

  1,761

  1,511

  Kensington and Chelsea

  828

  991

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  175

  245

  Lambeth

  3,390

  4,691

  Lewisham

  1,277

  1,547

  Merton

  321

  397

  Newham

  1,736

  2,106

  Redbridge

  652

  900

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  160

  236

  Southwark

  2,008

  2,162

  Sutton

  228

  240

  Tower Hamlets

  1,589

  1,757

  227W

  Metropolitan police—total robbery offences by Basic Command Unit (BCU) Financial years 1999–2000 to 2000–01—based on force boundary since 1 April 2000

  Year ending

  BCU

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Waltham Forest

  943

  1,281

  Wandsworth

  1,217

  1,427

  Westminster

  2,468

  2,397

  'Squads'

  0

  1

  Grand total

  36,015

  40,992

  Crime (Wales)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in crime levels in Wales in the last 12 months. [53310]

  Mr. Denham
  The most recent data available are for the year ending 31 March 2001. The table compares the number of offences in the main crime categories for that year with the previous year.

  Recorded crimes in Wales

  Offence group

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  Percentage change

  Violence against the person

  37,922

  38,230

  1

  Sexual offences

  1,749

  1,702

  -3

  Robbery

  909

  890

  -2

  Burglary

  36,764

  32,883

  -11

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  98,727

  89,035

  -10

  Fraud and forgery

  11,889

  10,449

  -12

  Criminal damage

  54,926

  53,287

  -3

  Drug offences

  8,520

  8,351

  -2

  Other offences

  4,081

  3,622

  -11

  Total recorded crime

  255,487

  238,449

  -7

  1Years ending March

  Police Powers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ability of police officers to cross police authority boundaries when pursuing suspected criminals. [53115]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no restriction on police officers crossing police boundaries when pursuing suspected criminals. Guidance issued to police forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers advises that when police officers cross boundaries in such circumstances they should hand over the pursuit as soon as possible to the police force whose area they have crossed into.

  Wolvercote Clinic
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the Wolvercote clinic should close. [53222]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is our intention to maintain the services provided by the Wolvercote clinic but in a new location, as yet to be determined.

  Air Weapons
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the cost of introducing a certification regime for the holding of air weapons. [53453]
  228W
  Mr. Denham
  We have not made a detailed assessment of the costs of introducing a certification regime for air weapons, but as there are an estimated 4 million air weapons in circulation it is clear that the resource implications for police firearms licensing departments would be very substantial.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to introduce new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. [53425]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling antisocial behaviour calls for a cross-Government approach. Among the many actions we are taking are the introduction of community safety officers and measures in the Police Reform Bill to enhance the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs). We are also consulting on further measures to deal with the problems of antisocial tenants and of abandoned vehicles.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to public spending was of the diversity training programme within the prison service; and how long it will take for all relevant prison staff to have completed the programme. [53419]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total cost, met from an award from the Cabinet Office Invest to Modernise fund, was £715,000. All staff should have been trained within the next two to three years.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his department has contributed to the gays and lesbians in the prison service support group. [53420]

  Beverley Hughes
  Support from the prison service has largely been advisory for this staff support network. A small amount of funding (less than £2,000) has been given towards the cost of leaflets and posters.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men held in prisons in England and Wales who are serving a sentence of over five years were charged with offences involving(a) violence and (b) non-violent crime. [53686]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of males who were serving sentences of over five years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on the 31 March 2002, broken down by offence group.

  Offence group

  Number of prisoners

  Violence against the person

  6,126

  Sex offences

  3,391

  Drug offences

  3,341

  Robbery

  2,549

  Burglary

  845

  Other offences

  638

  Theft and handling

  137

  Fraud and forgery

  76

  Offence not recorded

  73

  Car Theft
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars have been stolen in the past two years for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of car theft. [53748]

  Mr. Denham
  During the year 1999–2000 there were 374,686 recorded thefts and attempted thefts of motor vehicles in England and Wales and 338,796 during 2000–01. The information available does not distinguish between cars and other motor vehicles.

  The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) was set up in September 1998 to develop and oversee the implementation of initiatives to meet the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years. They published their proposals for achieving the target on 22 September 1999.

  The main proposals include improved security on new and used cars; improved car park security; better policing and community responses which target prolific offenders and crime hotspots; and new procedures at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 took forward VCRAT recommendations for regulation of the motor salvage industry and controls on the supply of vehicle number plates and we expect to implement these provisions progressively between August 2002 and April 2003.

  Prison Albany
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Prison Service's application for planning permission to extend HMP Albany was made under emergency procedures. [53706]

  Beverley Hughes
  The prison population has risen considerably, and on 30 April 2002 was provisionally estimated at 70,578, an increase of 7.5 per cent. (nearly 5,000 prisoners) on the number held in April 2001. Because of the urgent need to provide additional accommodation at existing prisons, including Albany, applications for planning clearance have had to be submitted under the special urgency procedure of Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 which gives the local planning authority 14 days from the date of receipt to submit any comments.

  Planning clearance was requested on 11 April 2002 from the Isle of Wight council for the construction of Albany prison of one, two storey 40-place ready to use unit with a single storey ancillary building, within the secure perimeter of the prison. The council advised us on 24 April 2002 that their Development Control Committee had resolved to raise no objection to the proposal. The Prison Service will be writing separately to the hon. Member with further details of their proposals.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of the quality of the consultation by the CRE on the draft code of practice on the duty to promote racial equality; how many consultees in each category responded; and what proportion they represented of all consultees. [53465]
  230W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) issued about 45,000 consultation packs to all listed public authorities and a range of voluntary sector organisations for information. The consultation pack was accompanied by a consultation feedback questionnaire which could be returned both via surface mail or completed on-line.

  We are aware that of the 8,000 packs sent to parish councils, at least 27 were received only shortly before or even after the end of the consultation period. This was unacceptable. All parish councils who contacted the CRE to complain were given a two week extension and could respond until 15 March 2002.

  The CRE received 974 responses to the consultation questionnaire including a number of collated responses from representative bodies and Government Departments. 87 parish councils responded.

  In terms of clarity 85.6 per cent. of respondents found the draft statutory code mainly or completely clear. 82.8 per cent. of respondents found the draft code fairly or very easy to understand and 77.4 per cent. of respondents found the draft code either very or fairly easy to follow.

  A range of promotional and consultative conferences with public and voluntary sector organisations complemented the written consultation exercise. The conferences and seminars were favourably received and were used to both inform the public sector of the new duty and to receive feedback and clarify issues raised in the consultation pack.

  The following is the breakdown of the categories of responses to the consultation exercise.

  Categories by sector

  Number of responses

  Percentage

  Central Government

  15

  1·5

  Local government1

  218

  22·4

  Health

  55

  5·6

  Police/criminal justice

  24

  2·5

  Schools

  403

  41·4

  Further/higher education

  70

  7·2

  Non-departmental public bodies

  27

  2·8

  Voluntary sector

  18

  1·8

  Trade unions

  8

  0·8

  Other

  23

  2·4

  Unclassified

  113

  11·6

  Total respondents

  974

  100

  1 Includes parish councils

  Anti-Semitism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and Jewish property in London. [54221]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Government condemn all acts of racism, anti-Semitism and religious intolerance. We are fully committed to tackling these manifestations of a vile hatred. That is why we extended the scope of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to cover religiously as well as racially aggravated offences and why we increased the maximum penalty for inciting racial hatred from two to seven years imprisonment. The investigation of race hate crime is also

  231W
  a priority for the police, who work closely with the community and who are treating these recent incidents with the seriousness which they clearly deserve.

  Europol
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he plans to take to improve the democratic accountability of Europol; [54667]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the democratic control over Europol. [54668]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Commission's Communication is a welcome contribution to the continuing debate on the democratic accountability of Europol. Under the terms of the Europol convention the Director is accountable to the Europol management board on which the individual member states are represented. The Commission's Communication concludes that the existing controls are not legally insufficient given the limited nature of Europol's powers.

  The Government are consulting interested parties and will respond when the matter is next debated within the Council structure.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources are planned to be made available to NCIS for the anticipated increase in money laundering reporting by professionals following the Proceeds of Crime Bill. [53611]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office made an extra £250,000 available to the National Criminal Intelligence Service in 2000–01 to fund additional staff for the Economic Crime Branch, which handles suspicious transaction reports. The extra funding was increased to £1.8 million last year and will continue this year. The National Criminal Intelligence Service increased the staffing of the branch from 24 in August 2000 to 66 in December 2001, and a further increase of up to 20 staff is planned for 2002–03.

  The Home Office and National Criminal Intelligence Service will keep the Service's capacity to deal with suspicious transaction reports under review following commencement of the new money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Bill with a view to ensuring that an effective service is maintained.

  The funding referred to above is separate from an additional £1 million which has been provisionally earmarked for 2002–03 for tracking terrorist finances. This will provide funding for a multi-agency unit at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, supported by additional investigative capacity at the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the length of time is before solicitors, accountants and financial advisers who report suspected money laundering to NCIS receiving guidance on how to proceed(a) on average and (b) in the 20 per cent. of cases where NCIS is slowest to give guidance. [53612]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information is not available in this form. I am informed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service that in all cases where guidance is 232W
  sought about the making of a suspicious transaction report, advice is immediately available by telephone through the help desk within the Economic Crime Branch. When a report is made and identified by the Economic Crime Branch as requiring a prompt law enforcement response, it is processed under a fast track system within 24 hours and forwarded to the relevant law enforcement agency for any necessary action.

  We are considering tabling amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill in order to introduce time limits within which law enforcement should either give or withhold consent for a financial transaction that has not yet taken place, where it has been reported as suspicious.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are on the sex offenders register. [53867]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned for, convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offence specified in schedule 1 to the Act to provide certain details to the police. There is, however, no "register" of sex offenders, as such; nor are sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Act separately identified as such in criminal statistics.

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

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who are on the Sex Offenders Register reside in (i) Spelthorne and (ii) Surrey. [54326]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned for, convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offence specified in schedule 1 to the Act to provide certain details to the police. There is, however, no "register" of sex offenders, as such; nor are sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Act separately identified as such in criminal statistics.

  Until recently, data on the number of sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Act were collated biannually on a national basis from the police national computer. However, this arrangement has been overtaken following guidance issued by the Home Office in respect of the provisions in section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The guidance requires information about the number of sex offenders subject to the Act's requirements in each police area to be published

  233W
  on an annual basis starting in 2002 and local systems are being put in place to deliver this. We have no plans to require publication by constituency or to break down published figures further. Until these systems are in place information on the number of sex offenders subject to the Act's requirements could be obtained only by a specific exercise by a particular police force concerned.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex offender orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been(a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement. [51828]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have been informed of 96 sex offender orders made by the courts between 1 December 1998, when the provisions were implemented, and 31 December 2001. Figures by police force area are not available for the entire period.

  We have been informed of three successful breach prosecutions during 1999 and 21 during 2000, the most recent period for which published data are available. We have a provisional figure of 28 further prosecutions for the first three quarters of 2001. These data are not available broken down by area. Information on discharges of sex offender orders is not routinely collected.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the national arrangements are in the gathering of information on children involved in cases of child pornography. [51648]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is the Government view that every image of child pornography depicts an instance of child abuse. As such, when a child is successfully identified from an image by law enforcement, the relevant local authority will be contacted.

  The core interagency child protection guidance: "Working Together to Safeguard Children", sets out the role and responsibilities of agencies and practitioners and how these agencies should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse. The guidance lays down the procedure to be followed in a case of child abuse form the initial referral of the victim to the local authority right through, where necessary, to registration on the Child Protection Register.

  Additionally, the United Kingdom, through National Criminal Intelligent Service, is currently leading the development of an international database of child abuse images, to the held at Interpol. The image database will greatly assist in the identification of victims world wide and will hold all United Kingdom images. The feasibility study supporting the development process will be completed this year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) nationality and (b) future rights of those no longer eligible for the special voucher scheme. [46319]
  234W
  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during the second reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 354.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation was carried out prior to the abolition of the special voucher scheme. [46318]

  Angela Eagle
  We consulted with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and entry clearance posts abroad on the current use of the scheme and the implications of its abolition.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which detention centres for asylum seekers(a) provide and (b) have provided on-site education; for each centre that provided on-site education which (i) private and (ii) public organisation provided the education; and what elements of the national curriculum are followed in each of the centres. [51136]

  Angela Eagle
  In addition to the provision of adult education at removal centres, there is provision for on-site education of children at Harmondsworth and Dungavel removal centres. There was also provision for education at Yarl's Wood removal centre.

  Harmondsworth removal centre is managed and operated by UK Detention Services. Dungavel removal centre is managed and operated by Premier Detention Services Ltd. In both cases, the contractor makes provision for education and employs suitably qualified staff as managers of education.

  The profile and numbers of children at an immigration removal centre changes from day to day. Education provision at the centres needs therefore to be sufficiently flexible to cater for the needs of a variable number of children of variable ages and abilities.

  In both Harmondsworth and Dungavel a programme of modular education is delivered. These programmes concentrate on numeracy and literacy and the national curriculum, and the Scottish equivalent for Dungavel, provides the framework from which these programmes have been developed.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost per pupil of education provision in detention centres has been in the last year for which figures are available. [51659]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: No figures are available. The cost of adult and child education provision will differ from removal centre to removal centre and will form just one element of the overall cost of the contracts to run the individual centres.

  Prison Population
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have occurred in the(a) numbers and (b) percentages of (i) women and (ii) men imprisoned in each of the past 10 years; and what his estimate is of the likely changes in the next three years. [54020]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested in given in the tables.
  235W

  Male prison population on 30 June 1992–2001, with numerical and percentage changes from previous year

  Population on 30 June

  Actual change since previous year

  Percentage change since previous year

  1992

  45,277

  1,195

  3

  1993

  42,666

  -2,611

  -6

  1994

  47,125

  4,459

  10

  1995

  49,088

  1,963

  4

  1996

  52,951

  3,863

  8

  1997

  58,795

  5,844

  11

  1998

  62,607

  3,812

  6

  1999

  61,322

  1,315

  2

  2000

  61,839

  -2,983

  -3

  2001

  62,690

  851

  1

  Female prison population on 30 June 1992–2001, with numerical and percentage changes from previous year

  Population on 30 June

  Actual change since previous year

  Percentage change since previous year

  1992

  1,555

  11

  1

  1993

  1,580

  25

  2

  1994

  1,804

  224

  14

  1995

  1,998

  194

  11

  1996

  2,305

  307

  15

  1997

  2,672

  367

  16

  1998

  3,120

  448

  17

  Prison population rate1 per 100,000 population (Council of Europe member states)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Albania

  2—

  2—

  85

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Andorra

  2

  2—

  2—

  30

  2—

  2—

  Armenia

  2—

  2—

  200

  2—

  2—

  210

  Austria

  84

  86

  85

  85

  84

  2—

  Azerbaijan

  2—

  325

  325

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Belgium

  76

  82

  77

  80

  83

  83

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  2—

  2—

  2—

  35

  45

  2

  Bulgaria

  126

  142

  2—

  2—

  115

  2—

  Croatia

  45

  47

  50

  2—

  2—

  60

  Cyprus

  35

  40

  2—

  37

  43

  2—

  Czech Republic

  202

  209

  217

  224

  208

  188

  Denmark

  61

  62

  63

  66

  61

  58

  Estonia

  2—

  300

  2—

  303

  325

  334

  Finland

  58

  56

  55

  46

  56

  60

  France

  90

  90

  89

  91

  80

  77

  Georgia

  2—

  2—

  190

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Germany

  83

  90

  95

  97

  97

  98

  Greece

  51

  54

  68

  72

  76

  76

  Hungary

  129

  136

  142

  161

  157

  155

  Iceland

  2—

  43

  35

  2—

  30

  2—

  Ireland

  62

  68

  71

  72

  76

  82

  Italy

  85

  86

  87

  89

  94

  97

  Latvia

  405

  407

  2—

  360

  355

  368

  Liechtenstein

  2

  2—

  2—

  75

  2—

  2—

  Lithuania

  323

  356

  2—

  385

  257

  313

  Luxembourg

  104

  2—

  91

  90

  92

  2—

  Malta

  62

  2—

  70

  2—

  68

  2—

  Moldova

  263

  2—

  2—

  2—

  265

  2—

  Netherlands

  75

  87

  75

  84

  87

  93

  Norway

  52

  53

  56

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Poland

  148

  148

  153

  142

  170

  207

  Portugal

  140

  145

  144

  131

  127

  131

  Romania

  194

  197

  2—

  2—

  222

  225

  Russian Federation

  713

  2—

  690

  729

  2—

  2—

  San Marino3

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Slovakia

  144

  138

  2—

  2—

  132

  135

  Slovenia

  31

  39

  2—

  48

  57

  58

  236w

  Female prison population on 30 June 1992–2001, with numerical and percentage changes from previous year

  Population on 30 June

  Actual change since previous year

  Percentage change since Previous year

  1999

  3,207

  87

  3

  2000

  3,355

  148

  5

  2001

  3,713

  358

  11

  Long-term projections of male and female prisoners, projected through to 2005 (average population)—produced October 2001

  Central variant

  2003

  2004

  2005

  Total

  70,200

  72,900

  74,900

  Male

  65,700

  68,200

  70,000

  Female

  4,490

  4,710

  4,910

  High scenario

  Total

  72,900

  76,700

  79,600

  Male

  67,800

  71,000

  73,600

  Female

  5,170

  5,620

  6,050

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the total prison population per 100,000 of the population; and what the comparable figures are for each of the past five years in other Council of Europe member states. [54018]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested appears in the table.
  237W

  Prison population rate1 per 100,000 population (Council of Europe member states)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Spain

  2—

  113

  111

  111

  114

  102

  Sweden

  65

  59

  60

  59

  64

  68

  Switzerland

  85

  88

  79

  81

  79

  71

  The Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia

  50

  49

  55

  2—

  70

  2—

  Turkey

  87

  94

  100

  2—

  74

  83

  Ukraine

  425

  415

  2—

  2—

  435

  2—

  United Kingdom:

  England and Wales

  107

  120

  126

  125

  124

  127

  Northern Ireland

  98

  95

  91

  69

  60

  51

  Scotland

  101

  119

  117

  118

  115

  2—

  1Based on estimates of national population

  2 Data not available

  3Included in figures for Italy

  Source:
  Statistical contacts in each country, Council of Europe

  Prisoners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the educational needs and progress of prisoners are assessed before they are transferred between prison establishments. [54064]

  Beverley Hughes
  We will put in place arrangements for all prisoners to have access to a full assessment of learning needs on reception and a supporting individual learning plan. In the longer term we want to make the transfer of records of individual achievement from prison to prison more efficient as part of a wider strategy to support effective management information systems through information technology. This should eradicate the need for prisoners to be re-assessed before of after they are transferred to a new establishment within a reasonable timescale.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to assess the individual educational needs of prisoners when they first enter custody; what plans he has to replace the global education targets set for the Prison Service with incentives for establishment and prison staff to improve the education attainments of individual prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [54065]

  Beverley Hughes
  All prisoners are offered a basic skills screening test at reception. We plan to improve initial assessment by introducing a greater range of diagnostic tests and are piloting computer-based initial assessment in basic skills for juveniles in selected young offender institutions and secure units.

  We are widening education targets at national and establishment level to enable prisons to be more flexible in responding to the learning needs of their population. Prison education is now covered by the Adult Learning Inspectorate, which will monitor teaching and training standards to ensure they meet the needs of learners and enable them to progress. Under the Basic Skills Quality Initiative, all establishments will be supported in producing an action plan for delivering basic skills. We will also provide training to instructors and prison officers to enable them to support prisoners' educational needs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give prisoners over 16 years a statutory right to receive education while in custody. [54063]
  238W
  Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to make education a statutory right to prisoners who are not of compulsory school age. But we will increase access to education for all prisoners through extra resources over the next two years and by continuing to remove barriers to learning.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were serving custodial sentences in each of the last three years, broken down by location. [53824]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of women serving custodial sentences on the 30 June in the last three years, broken down by prison is given in the table.

  Establishment

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  2,436

  2,666

  2,899

  Askham Grange

  119

  119

  134

  Brockhill

  56

  77

  68

  Bullwood Hall

  133

  156

  161

  Cookham Wood

  146

  141

  151

  Drake Hall

  224

  172

  232

  Durham

  100

  94

  100

  East Sutton Park

  97

  71

  91

  Eastwood Park

  165

  221

  177

  Foston Hall

  166

  164

  155

  Highpoint

  194

  188

  229

  Holloway

  199

  210

  154

  Low Newton

  61

  161

  197

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  185

  New Hall

  266

  279

  238

  Send

  88

  198

  216

  Styal

  331

  335

  320

  Winchester

  91

  79

  91

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who are Irish citizens have died in United Kingdom prisons in each year since 1996. [53245]

  Beverley Hughes
  The numbers of deaths since 1996 in establishments in England and Wales of prisoners who were Irish citizens are set out in the table.
  239W

  Year

  Self-inflicted deaths1Irish prisoners3

  Natural causes deaths2 Irish prisoners3

  1996

  0

  0

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  1

  0

  1999

  3

  1

  2000

  3

  0

  2001

  2

  2

  20024

  1

  0

  Total

  10

  3

  1 Not all self-inflicted deaths result in an inquest verdict of suicide.

  2Not all deaths initially classified as being due to natural causes result in an inquest verdict of natural causes.

  3Includes only those prisoners who are known to be Irish citizens.

  4Up to and including 28 April 2002.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young prisoners have been subjected to restraint under Rule 52 of the Rules for Young Offenders Institutions since April 2000; and what sort of restraints were used in each case. [52137]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been nine young prisoners between the age of 18 and 21 years of age placed in restraint under Rule 52 during the stated period. The only restraint available for use under Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, Rule 52, is the body belt and it was used on 11 separate occasions at the following locations:

  Location

  Date

  Guys Marsh

  June 2000

  Glen Parva

  August 2000

  Reading

  September 2000

  Portland

  September 2000

  Brockhill

  1October 2000

  Feltham

  March 2001, August 2001

  Dover

  August 2001

  Swinfen Hall

  March 2002

  1Three separate occasions

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on developing policies for the aftercare of wrongfully convicted prisoners; and what plans he has to consult on his proposals. [51941]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have now received the report of the working group established to consider this issue and I am considering its recommendations. I am also considering the extent to which there should be consultation on the proposals contained in the report. I will make an announcement shortly.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to notify hon. Members of proposals for prisons in their constituencies. [53705]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is already Government policy to notify hon. Members of proposals for new prison accommodation in their constituencies.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have sprinklers fitted in the residential parts of the prisons. [54324]
  240W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: No prisons have sprinklers fitted in the residential areas of prisons. The Prison Service is currently undertaking field trials to evaluate the viability of sprinkler provision.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42999]

  Mr. MacShane
  The following FCO functions have been market tested and subsequently outsourced within the last five years:

  (i) London Press and Pictures Service (LPS), British Satellite News/London Radio Service (BSN/LRS) and British Information Services (BIS) Dispatch of Information Materials. All three services had been provided by the Central Office of Information (COI) and were outsourced in 1997 following a COI review which resulted in their no longer providing such services. Savings were as follows:

  LPS: £522,000—a 13.6 per cent. saving per annum

  BSN/LRS: £150,000—a 7 per cent. saving per annum

  BIS £397,000—a 35 per cent. saving per annum.

  (ii) Facilities management of the UK estate was outsourced in 1998 at a saving of £463,000 (30 per cent. per annum).

  (iii) Guarding services for the UK estate were outsourced in 1998 at a saving of £340,000 (11 per cent. per annum).

  National Insurance Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost in a full year of the budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) his Department and (b) agencies of his Department. [51953]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the Government's decision to vote in favour of a vote of no confidence in Jose Bustani, Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; [52578]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision of Her Majesty's Government to vote to remove the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. [54237]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our policy throughout this matter has been guided by our judgment of what is in the best interests of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a significant number of the OPCW's Executive
  241W
  Council. At a Special Conference of the OPCW on 21 April, 48 states parties voted for the resolution to terminate Mr. Bustani's appointment, 43 abstained and only seven voted against. Every European Union country voted for the resolution (except France, which abstained), as did other key countries like India, Australia, Canada and Japan. Mr. Bustani's appointment was accordingly terminated with immediate effect.

  The Special Conference also called for states parties to nominate candidates for the vacancy of Director General as soon as possible, and for the Executive Council to meet before 31 May to consider the nominations and decide on a recommendation to put to the conference before 10 June.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the United Kingdom voted on 22 April at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for the removal of the OPCW Director General from his post; and if he will make a statement on Jose Bustani's replacement. [54168]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our policy throughout this matter has been guided by our judgment of what is in the best interests of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Mr. Bustani had lost the confidence of a significant number of the OPCW' s Executive Council. At a special conference of the OPCW on 21 April, 48 states parties voted for the resolution to terminate Mr. Bustani's appointment, 43 abstained and only seven voted against. Every European Union country voted for the resolution (except France, which abstained), as did other key countries like India, Australia, Canada and Japan. Mr. Bustani's appointment was accordingly terminated with immediate effect.

  The special conference also called for states parties to nominate candidates for the vacancy of Director General as soon as possible, and for the Executive Council to meet before 31 May to consider the nominations and decide on a recommendation to put to the conference before 10 June.

  Jordan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Jordanian authorities concerning the case of the Siham Suleiman Moussa Qandah. [53075]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The case of Siham Suleiman Moussa Qandah and her family was brought to our attention recently by several MPs and by the NGO Christian Solidarity Worldwide. The Jordanian authorities are also aware of our interest in the case. I am very concerned about the unfortunate and distressing situation. The UK is committed to the promotion and protection of religious freedom, and condemns instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief. The case of Siham Suleiman Moussa Qandah is a complex one and I am seeking further information from our embassy in Amman and from Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Our embassy has already been in touch with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the case. We will need to ensure that any action we take is not counter-productive to the needs of the individuals concerned.

  Shafiq Rasul
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the health of Shafiq Rasul in Camp X-ray; and what steps he has taken to ensure that Shafiq Rasul has access to legal advice and assistance. [53346]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British officials have paid two visits to British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. On both occasions, the detainees, including Mr. Rasul, appeared in satisfactory physical condition and did not complain of any mistreatment.

  In response to our approaches, the US Government have given us the assurance that they would treat all the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

  The question of access to legal representation by the detainees has recently been the subject of judicial review proceedings in the High Court. An application has been made to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the High Court's decision. I am not in a position therefore to comment further on this matter.

  Pakistan (Christians)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the situation of(a) Ayub Masih and (b) other Christians in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [53655]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have received a large number of representatives from hon. Members and members of the public about Ayub Masih. We are deeply concerned about the misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the fate of many Pakistani citizens, including Christians, imprisoned under these laws. Together with our EU partners, we have raised our concerns at regular intervals with the Pakistani authorities, citing specific cases including that of Mr. Masih We raised his case again with our EU partners on 10 April 2002 and are now considering what further action we should take.

  Gibraltar
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government were informed of the discriminatory pensions practices of Gibraltar that he reported to the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 453. [52966]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: HCA was introduced in 1989. The then Government first raised in 1990 the concern that such a scheme should not be discriminatory in nature. We have continued to press the Government of Gibraltar for a fuller picture of this scheme and the elderly persons allowance.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the discriminatory pensions practices of Gibraltar that he referred to in the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 453. [52964]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: We are particularly concerned about the household cost allowance paid to those of pensionable age in Gibraltar. We also have some concerns about the elderly persons allowance.
  243W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed that the European Commission was embarking on an investigation into potentially illegal practices in relation to pensions in Gibraltar. [52962]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The European Commission approached Her Majesty's Government on 12 July 2001 in relation to this matter.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions Ministers have informed the Committees of the House about the discriminatory pensions practices of Gibraltar that he reported to the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 453. [52952]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: As I told the House on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 453, we are concerned that pensions practices in Gibraltar may be discriminatory under EC law. The permanent undersecretary at the FCO briefed the Public Accounts Committee on 15 December 1997. The Secretary of State wrote to the PAC in July 1998. I wrote on 8 March of this year and will be doing so again to provide an update of recent events. I also wrote in confidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 17 April.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which dates the discriminatory pensions practices of Gibraltar have been formally raised with the Gibraltar Government in the past 10 years(a) in writing and (b) in discussions with Ministers. [52965]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: During the period from 1998 the Government have raised the matter with the Government of Gibraltar in writing on the following dates: 17 February 1998, 6 March 1998, 29 July 1998, 31 July 2001, 23 August 2001, 19 September 2001, 20 September 2001 and 8 March 2002.

  British Ministers discussed the issue with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on 28 January 1998. I last wrote to the Government of Gibraltar on this on 8 March 2002.

  To obtain the requested information for the period prior to 1998 would necessitate a search of a large number of files which could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he informed the Government of Gibraltar prior to referring in the House on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 453, to the discriminatory pensions practices of Gibraltar. [52963]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: As I told the House on 16 April, we are concerned that pensions practices in Gibraltar may be discriminatory. We have drawn this concern to the attention of the Government of Gibraltar on numerous occasions. Most recently, I wrote to the Chief Minister on 8 March of this year.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister for Europe on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 433, on pension scams and the Government of Gibraltar, if he will set out his policy in relation to this issue; and what discussions he had with the Government of Gibraltar prior to this statement. [54907]
  244W
  Peter Hain
  As I told the House on 16 April, we are concerned that pension practices in Gibraltar may be discriminatory. The Government continue to urge the Government of Gibraltar to address this matter.

  For details of when the Government have raised this matter with the Government of Gibraltar I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) today (UIN 52965).

  Israel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for International Development to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 684W, what representations have been made by his Department to the Israeli Government to seek financial compensation for EU-financed development projects in Gaza and the west bank damaged and destroyed by Israeli military action. [53472]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Government have stressed to the Government of Israel that any action they take in self defence must be proportionate. Israel must avoid civilian casualties and avoid damaging civilian property and infrastructure. Together with our EU partners we have raised our concerns about the damage to EU and other donor-funded projects in the west bank and Gaza strip caused by Israeli military actions and demanded that this practice stop. The EU reserves the right to demand compensation in the appropriate fora. The European Commission continues to monitor and cost this damage.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will discuss with the Saudi ambassador to the UK the poem he has published praising a Palestinian suicide bomber; and if he will make a statement; [54195]

  (2) what representations he has had from (a) the Government of Israel and (b) the Board of Deputies of British Jews about the recently published poem and letter to the Board of Deputies by the Saudi ambassador to the UK; [54201]

  (3) if he will discuss with the Saudi ambassador to the UK the letter he wrote to the Board of Deputies about a former Prime Minister of Israel; and if he will make a statement. [54196]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have made clear to the Saudi ambassador our well known position on suicide bombings. We condemn them as we condemn all forms of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians.

  I have received a letter from the Jewish Board of Deputies to which I will reply. We have received no representations on this subject from the Government of Israel.

  East Timor
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will be represented in East Timor after independence. [55343]
  245W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has played a leading role in rebuilding East Timor and preparing for self-government there. We have so far committed more than £30 million for reconstruction and rehabilitation—including —12 million from DFID for the first three years after independence. We will upgrade the existing British Office in Dili to an embassy on independence and Hamish St. Clair Daniel will be the first British ambassador to the Democratic Republic of East Timor. I will represent HMG at the Independence Day celebrations in Dili on 20 May.

  St. Helena
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date and by what means he plans to restore citizenship rights to the St. Helenians. [54909]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A Commencement Order giving effect to the citizenship provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 was signed by the Secretary of State on 1 May and will take effect on 21 May. From that date, which is also the quincentenary of the discovery of St. Helena, St. Helenians will be able to apply for British citizen passports.

  British Overseas Territories Act
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 Commencement Order will be made. [54908]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed a Commencement Order on 1 May which will bring the citizenship provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 into force on 21 May 2002.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department takes to ensure that the export of arms is to countries which will only use the arms for approved purposes; and if he will make a statement. [54904]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Britain has one of the strictest and most transparent arms export licensing systems of any country. We consider all export licence applications on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Our criteria clearly state that we will not issue licences where there is a clear risk that the experts might be used for either internal repression or external aggression.

  The British Government has been in the forefront of international efforts to strengthen the regulation of the arms trade and proliferation. We were instrumental in getting agreement for an EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, and we regularly encourage other countries to adopt stricter and more transparent arms export policies. We are active members of all the key regimes that work to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Australia Group (which deals with chemical and biological
  246W
  weapons). And we are signatories to key arms control treaties, such as the Ottawa Convention on landmines, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

  The UK's national export licensing criteria were set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Peter Hain) to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 199-203W.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the offer of compensation made by Libya for the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing. [54577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government do not have a direct role in the discussions concerning compensation by Libya to the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing. Negotiations have been taking place between lawyers representing the families and representatives of the Libyan Government. The Government would not find acceptable any outcome under which British families do not receive an appropriate sum in compensation or receive less than others. I have raised the question of compensation for British families with the United States Government, which has raised it in turn with the lawyers directly involved in the discussions.

  Libya
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Libya with particular reference to sanctions. [54578]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government pursue a policy of critical engagement with Libya, through which we hope to continue improving relations. UN sanctions against Libya are currently suspended. The United Kingdom will support a lift once Libya has satisfied the remaining requirements of UNSCRs 731,748,883 and 1192.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which individuals in Zimbabwe have bank accounts which have been frozen by the European Union and the United States, broken down by(a) the size of those assets frozen and (b) the country in which those assets were held. [48789]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: European Council Regulation 310/2002 requires member states to freeze the assets of Robert Mugabe, immediate members of his family and members of the Government of Zimbabwe. It is for each member state to ensure that the terms of the regulation are implemented. While the regulation does not allow for the disclosure of details regarding accounts and amounts frozen, in the United Kingdom accounts belonging to two individuals listed in the regulation have been frozen.

  Actions taken by the United States in respect of individuals in Zimbabwe are a matter for its Government.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Copyright Piracy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department proposes to take to combat video, DVD and internet piracy. [53442]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are supporting the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill which raises the maximum penalty for copyright piracy offences. We will be strengthening copyright law relevant to online use and misuse of copyright material in regulations to implement the EC Directive on copyright and related right in the information society. In addition, our support for initiatives that will raise awareness of and respect for copyright and other intellectual property (IP) rights, such as the Crimestoppers Anti-Counterfeiting Campaign and the CD-Rom for schools that will explain IP issues relevant to e-commerce, are further contributing to the fight against piracy. We will continue to collaborate with representatives from public sector enforcement interests and affected private sector interests in the Counterfeiting and Piracy Forum to identify practical solutions to the fight against all piracy. We have recently arranged for the police National High-Tech Crime Unit to participate in the forum in order to gain from its experience of fighting Internet crime.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her officials have had with officials in other departments on combating video, DVD and internet piracy. [53441]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My officials are in close contact with officials in other Departments on a regular basis, including those in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.

  Tourism
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was paid from public funds to support the British Tourism Industry in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [54012]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table sets out moneys paid from public funds to support and compensate the British tourism industry in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. DCMS provides funding for the British Tourist Authority (BTA) to promote Britain overseas but other direct public funding to the tourism industry in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the devolved administrations, and is not included in the table. Other moneys, mostly administered by the English Tourism Council (ETC), from central Government are included.248W

  £million

  Recipient of Payment

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  British Tourist Authority

  37·5

  37·02

  149·7

  English Tourism Council

  212·1

  10·068

  314·869

  Greater London Authority (GLA)4

  —

  —

  1·9

  Other English grants5

  0·4

  0·1

  0·057

  1 This £49.7 million includes £14.2 million for foot and mouth disease (FMD) recovery.

  2 Grant in aid paid to the English Tourist Board (ETB), predecessor to the English Tourism Council.

  3This £14.869 million includes £0.6 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £3.8 million to tackle FMD.

  4As from 2001–02 public funding of tourism in London was granted by DCMS to the GLA—before it had been part of BTA and ETB/ETC grants.

  5Including Sector Challenge, Invest to Save Budget, and Tourism Strategy Fund.

  In addition to this direct Government funding:

  (a) Local authorities spend over £90 million per year in England promoting and developing tourism in their areas;

  (b) The Regional Development Agencies' Business Recovery Fund made £74 million available in 2001–02 to target help for rural businesses, including tourism businesses, affected by the implications of foot and mouth disease (FMD); and

  (c) DCMS's £1 billion expenditure on arts, museums, galleries, sport etc. also directly benefits tourism.

  ITV Digital
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from ITV Digital since the company's entry into administration on 27 March. [53883]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been kept closely in touch by all sides involved in the ITV Digital negotiations. However the decisions taken by ITV Digital are commercial decisions for them, and them alone, to take.

  National Stadium
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has received(a) Patrick Carter's report into the National Football Stadium and (b) the other information from the Football Association, WNSL, Sport England and other Government Departments to enable her to make an assessment of Wembley's National Stadium bid in accordance with her statement to the House on 19 December 2001. [54472]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made yesterday,Official Report, column 21–22. Further to that statement, I have now received Sport England's athletics study, a copy of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54423]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is actively committed to improving policy outcomes through the rural proofing process. The Department's current public service agreement includes a number of targets which will bring
  249W
  real benefits to rural areas, including ensuring all public libraries have internet access by the end of 2002 and introducing at least 12 Creative Partnerships by March 2004.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff(a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54415]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has taken a number of steps to raise awareness of rural issues among staff and its non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). The rural proofing checklist has been widely disseminated throughout the Department and to NDPBs and rural proofing has been incorporated into the Department's policy makers' checklist. A central contact point to promote rural proofing has been identified within the Department and officials have worked closely with the Countryside Agency on a number of key policy areas.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what mechanisms the Government will implement to ensure that(a) consumers on low incomes, (b) consumers who live in rural areas and (c) other consumers who live in areas which cannot presently receive digital terrestrial television will continue to have access to television services after analogue switch-off. [54617]

  Dr. Howells
  Analogue signals will not be turned off before two conditions are met:everyone who currently receives free-to-air channels is able, after switchover, to receive the same channels digitally, including in remote and rural areas, and
  switching to digital must be an affordable option, within the reach of people on low and fixed incomes. As a key measure of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers must have access to digital equipment before switchover is completed.

  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the impact of the work of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. [54572]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers and officials in my Department hold regular meetings with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to discuss progress. A funding agreement between my Department and CABE also sets out a range of performance-related targets that CABE is expected to meet.

  CABE's key achievements are set out in my Department's annual report.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her future funding intentions are for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. [54573]
  250W
  Dr. Howells
  This year (2002–03) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) will receive £3.53 million in grant-in-aid from my Department. CABE also receives some funding from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  The details of my Department's future funding for all its sponsored bodies will be announced as part of the Spending Review.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of whether the target for the reduction of running costs as a proportion of the departmental expenditure limit between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 will be met on time. [47255]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Latest estimates suggest that departmental running costs in 2001–02 represented 2.291 per cent. of the departmental expenditure limit, compared with 2.526 per cent. in 1999–2000. This means we will have exceeded the target to reduce running costs as a proportion of DEL by 4.5 per cent. These figures exclude transfers to the Department following machinery of Government changes in the wake of the general election on 7 June 2001.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by her Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52815]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The total annual cost of newspaper subscriptions in 2002–02 was £13,248. The table specifies each title taken, the cost per copy, and the total annual cost per title.

  DCMS—Newspaper subscriptions April 2002

  Title

  Number of copies

  Cost per copy (£)

  Total annual cost (£)

  Daily Express1

  7

  79·47

  556·29

  Daily Express2

  1

  22·62

  22·62

  Daily Mail1

  9

  79·47

  715·23

  Daily Mail2

  2

  22·62

  45·24

  Daily Mirror1

  8

  72·66

  581·28

  Daily Mirror2

  2

  14·48

  28·96

  Daily Star1

  4

  68·12

  272·48

  Daily Star2

  2

  13·57

  27·14

  Daily Telegraph1

  9

  102·18

  919·62

  Daily Telegraph2

  1

  33·93

  33·93

  Daily Telegraph3

  1

  20·36

  20·36

  Evening Standard4

  12

  79·47

  953·64

  Evening Standard5

  3

  79·47

  238·41

  Evening Standard6

  12

  79·47

  953·64

  Financial Times1

  13

  204·36

  2,656·68

  Financial Times2

  1

  40·72

  40·72

  Guardian1

  10

  102·18

  1,021·80

  Guardian2

  1

  38·45

  38·45

  Guardian7

  1

  20·36

  20·36

  Independent1

  8

  113,54

  908·32

  Independent2

  1

  40·72

  40·72

  Independent on Sunday

  1

  49·76

  49·76

  International Herald Tribune8

  1

  272·31

  272·31

  Jewish Chronicle

  1

  24·88

  24·88

  Mail on Sunday

  2

  45·24

  90·48

  Morning Advertiser

  2

  67·86

  135·72

  News of the World

  2

  27·14

  54·28

  Observer

  1

  49·76

  49·76

  The People

  2

  29·41

  58·82

  251W

  DCMS—Newspaper subscriptions April 2002

  Title

  Number of copies

  Cost per copy (£)

  Total annual cost (£)

  The Publican newspaper

  2

  43·85

  87·70

  Racing Post1

  2

  238·42

  476·84

  Sunday Business

  1

  45·24

  45·24

  Sunday Express

  1

  45·24

  45·24

  Sunday Mirror

  2

  29·41

  58·82

  Sunday Telegraph

  1

  45·24

  45·24

  Sunday Times

  1

  49·76

  49·76

  The Sun1

  8

  68·12

  544·96

  The Sun2

  2

  18·10

  36·20

  The Times1

  11

  79·47

  874·17

  The Times1

  1

  27·14

  27·14

  Tribune1

  1

  45·24

  45·24

  Total annual cost

  13,168·45

  1Monday to Friday

  2Saturday

  3Wednesday

  4City edition

  5News Extra edition

  6West End final

  7Tuesday

  8Monday to Saturday

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census 1901
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the costs of enhancement of the 1901 Census website since 2 January will be met by QinetiQ; and if the contract with QinetiQ prohibits an increase in user fees from those already announced. [51562]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The costs of the enhancements to the 1901 census website, which are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general Internet access, are being met in full by the contractor QinetiQ. The user fees are fixed by a statutory instrument and therefore cannot be increased.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide a breakdown of the number of family visitor appeals(a) determined, (b) allowed and (c) dismissed by the Immigration Appellate Authority (i) at an oral hearing and (ii) on the papers only in each month since 1 January. [54061]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  Month

  Determined

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  (i) Oral appeals:

  January 2002

  147

  97

  50

  February 2002

  148

  102

  46

  March 2002

  168

  119

  49

  (ii) Paper appeals:

  January 2002

  151

  79

  72

  February 2002

  152

  54

  98

  March 2002

  198

  65

  133

  252W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide a breakdown of the number of(a) oral and (b) paper-only family visitor appeals received by the Immigration Appellate Authority in each month since 1 January. [54060]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Oral appeals

  (b) Paper appeals

  January 2002

  172

  196

  February 2002

  184

  172

  March 2002

  285

  213

  Bailiff Law
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on the Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement—A Single Piece of Bailiff Law and Regulatory Structure for Enforcement". [55583]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to announce the publication of(a) the post consultation report for the Green Paper "Towards Effective Enforcement—A Single Piece of Bailiff Law and Regulatory Structure for Enforcement", and (b) the summary of responses following the consultation paper on distress for rent procedures.

  The Green Paper, published on 9 July 2001, invited comments on the structure for the regulation of enforcement services, a single piece of bailiff law, fees, information and data sharing and a partial regulatory impact assessment. The 84 respondents came from a wide variety of groups concerned with enforcement, including local authorities, public interest groups and enforcement agents. Consultation showed overwhelming support for most of the proposals in the Green Paper. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Delivery will require a legislative opportunity. We intend to publish a White Paper early next year bringing together proposals on both civil enforcement (including regulation of all enforcement agents) and distress for rent.

  My noble Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC today launched the publication 'National Standards for Enforcement Agents'. The 'National Standards' identifies duties and responsibilities which creditors and their enforcement agents share. It has been warmly welcomed and endorsed by the enforcement profession. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what criteria he judges whether the cost of a parliamentary question is disproportionate; and what guidance he gives to Departments. [52400]

  Mr. Leslie
  Decisions on whether to refuse to provide information on the grounds of disproportionate cost in response to parliamentary questions are taken in accordance with the requirements of the guidance issued by HM Treasury on "Costing Parliamentary Questions"
  253W
  and "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions" issued by the Cabinet Office. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House. The final decision on how to answer the parliamentary question rests with the individual Minister concerned who may decide that a full answer should be provided irrespective of cost.

  Age Equality Commission
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will establish an age equality commission; and if he will make a statement. [53116]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are committed to implementing the European employment and race directives by transposing the directives into UK law.

  The recent consultation, 'Towards Equality and Diversity', sought views on the most appropriate arrangements for advice and support for all the new equality strands covered by the employment directive, including age. We are currently considering the strategic and practical issues for all these strands in the light of these responses.

  Expenditure Authorisation
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on(a) the circumstances in which an accounting officer should seek a direction from a Minister before authorising expenditure, (b) the number of occasions since 1 May 1997 that such directions have been sought by accounting officers and (c) the Department and sum involved and the purpose of the expenditure for which a direction was sought in each case. [54833]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The circumstances in which an accounting officer should seek a direction from a Minister before authorising expenditure are set out in paragraphs 14—17 of the Treasury document, "The Responsibilities of an Accounting Officer", of July 2001. A copy of the document is available in the Library of the House. The number of occasions since 1 May 1997 that such directions have been sought by accounting officers is 13. The Departments concerned, together with the general subject matter of each direction, are as follows:
  1998—DSS: Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters Ltd (BA/POCL Automation Ltd);
  1998—DSS: Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters Ltd (BA/POCL Automation Ltd);
  1998—Northern Ireland Court Service: an individual's personnel records;
  1998—MOD: sale of cadet property in Moffat;
  1998—DSS: benefits integrity project;
  1999—DSS: benefits integrity project;
  1999—DSS: benefits integrity project;
  1999—ECGD: cashmere exporters;
  1999—ECGD: ECGD cover Indonesia;
  2000—ECGD: ECGD cover Romania;
  2000—MOD: financial assistance to meet cost of flight to Croatia for member of public to attend trial of those accused of murder of his son, a British service man;
  2001—MOD: RoRo ferries;
  2001—DTLR: Silverstone bypass.
  254W
  The Treasury is advised when a ministerial direction is issued, but comprehensive information on the sums involved and the purpose of the expenditure related to the direction is not provided to the Treasury by Departments.

HEALTH

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many digital radios are owned by his Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52861]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No digital radios are owned by the Department for use in the building from which Ministers work.

  Three radio channels (BBC Radio 3, 4 and 5) are available on television receivers fed from the Central Office of Information cable television system.

  Recombinant Factor VIII
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the charging mechanisms for providing recombinant factor VIII to haemophiliacs under the age of 20 but over the age of 16. [47846]

  Yvette Cooper
  If the product is supplied to a patient and administered at a hospital it is free of charge. If the product is supplied otherwise than for administration at a hospital normal prescription arrangements apply. No charge will be payable if the patient is under 19 and in full-time education, or qualifies for free prescriptions on other grounds, such as low income.

  Patients who have to pay and need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription pre-payment certificate.

  Riding for the Disabled Association
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role his Department envisages for the Riding for the Disabled Association in the rehabilitative treatment of children with musculo-skeletal disorders. [47020]

  Jacqui Smith
  The decision on what treatment to offer an individual patient is one for the clinicians involved in the case. They are responsible for deciding the best treatment for the patient. Doctors are required to exercise their clinical judgment, in consultation with the patient and informed by a patient's medical history.

  Genito-urinary Medicine
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on genito-urinary medicine in each of the past five years. [47869]

  Yvette Cooper
  Spending on genito-urinary medicine by national health service trusts in each of the past five years are shown in the table.
  255W

  Year

  £000

  1996–97

  117,910

  1997–98

  137,367

  1998–99

  151,745

  1999–2000

  171,593

  2000–01

  156,955

  Note:
  In 1999–2000 one NHS trust recorded expenditure on HIV/ AIDS within the speciality genito-urinary medicine. However, in 2000–01 the trust reclassified this expenditure and recorded it within the speciality infectious diseases. This accounts for an approximate decrease of £17 million in 2000–01 and also demonstrates that recording of expenditure on genito-urinary medicine can vary from year to year.

  Source:
  1996–97 to 2000–01 NHS Trust financial returns.

  Hearing Aids
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason analogue hearing aids continue to be fitted in hospitals involved in the modernising hearing aid services projects. [47835]

  Jacqui Smith
  The majority of hearing aids fitted in hospitals involved in the modernisation project are digital hearing aids. However, some of these hospitals are still fitting analogue aids as part of the continuing Medical Research Council research project, which is testing out the advantages of analogue and digital aids provided as part of a modernised service. The research project report is due at the end of 2002. In the meantime, hospitals can decide which hearing aids to fit, taking account of patient preference and exercising clinical judgment.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when PCTs and NHS trusts in the south-east that have been allowed to make digital hearing aids available will be given another chance to bid for that provision; [53880]

  (2) for what reasons digital hearing aid services have not been made available in Essex. [53922]

  Jacqui Smith
  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS trust and Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust are both among the thirty new sites I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 466W). We have been able to involve all those sites who, having the support of their local health communities, submitted applications.

  The project managers at Royal National Institute for the Deaf are now looking towards identifying those sites to be provided with training and equipment to allow them to be ready to join in the Modernising Hearing Aid Services Project from April 2003. They will be contacting all those sites not yet involved in the project and encouraging those with an interest to have discussions with their health community and put forward a bid.

  MMR
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he intends to give to nursery schools and other providers of early years education on accepting children who have not received their MMR inoculations. [47840]

  Yvette Cooper
  General guidance on infection control in schools and nurseries has been issued by this Department, the Department for Education and Skills and the public health laboratory service in the form of a poster. Copies of this have been distributed to all schools and it is also available on the wired for health web site, specifically at www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk//healthy/ images/INFECT—POSTER.PDF

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of MMR vaccination is in Darlington. [53295]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Information about children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) in County Durham and Darlington health authority by their 2" birthday is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000-01". A copy of the bulletin is in the House of Commons Library and can also be found on the Department website www.doh.goy.uk/public/ sb0121.htm.

  Alcohol Awareness
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's procedures are for ensuring that every woman is made aware of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant. [51822]

  Ms Blears
  The Pregnancy Book, which is given free to all first time mothers, contains a section on alcohol consumption during pregnancy. It warns women that heavy or frequent drinking can seriously harm the baby's development, and they are encouraged to talk to their doctor or midwife if they need help to reduce their alcohol consumption. It also provides contact details for seeking further help and support.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Nottingham university CHP generator for the Queen's Medical Centre by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49512]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the elderly mental health for the Rotherham Priority Health NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49522]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Queen's Medical Centre ENT Ophthalmology Capital Scheme for the Queen's Medical Centre NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49544]
  257W
  Yvette Cooper
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimating the net savings in present value terms (ie all future costs and benefits discounted to

  Net present costs of PSC v PFI option

  £000

  Trust

  PFI

  Public

  Savings in net present value terms

  Percentage difference

  Rotherham Priority Health Services—Elderly mental health 'Swallownest' scheme

  8,166

  9,517

  1,351

  14

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham—combined heat and power generator

  20,932

  21,397

  465

  2

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham—ENT ophthalmology

  24,284

  28,226

  3,942

  14

  Note:
  Published guidance on Public Sector Comparators notes that: "Accounting Officers should not rely solely on a straight comparison of a PFI bid to its PSC, which should never be regarded as a pass/fail test but instead as a quantitative way of informing judgment". (Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No. 5: How to construct a public sector comparator

  National Insurance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the care home sector of additional employers' NI contributions as summarised in the Budget statement. [51914]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]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.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost in a full year of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) his Department, (b) agencies of his Department, (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of his Department, (d) the national health service and (e) contractors supplying services to the national health service. [51972]

  Ms Blears
  I refer you to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W

  Dental Care
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the dental care plans by dental practitioners and the impact this has on access to dental care; [52284]

  (2) what guidelines exist to guarantee a minimum level of access to NHS dental care within each health authority area. [52283]

  Ms Blears
  Health authorities in England are currently responsible for planning, and ensuring access to national health service dental services. "Modernising Health and Social Care-National Priorities Guidance 2000–01 to 2002–03" and subsequent guidance required health authorities to publish an externally assessed dentistry action plan to enable patients to access NHS dentistry through NHS Direct within locally agreed time and distance standards.

  Provision of NHS dental services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.
  258W
  their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme are shown in the table.

  Clinical Data
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what income his Department(a) has received and (b) plans to receive from the sale of anonymised clinical information. [52262]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not receive income from the sale of anonymised clinical data. Where data or other information is made available there may be a charge to cover administrative costs.

  Eastbourne and Hastings Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much the newly merged Eastbourne and Hastings hospital trusts will pay in additional national insurance contributions in the year 2002; [52226]

  (2) how much he estimates the merged Eastbourne arid Hastings hospital trusts will pay in additional national insurance contributions in 2003. [52561]

  Ms Blears
  The increases in national insurance, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 April, will come into effect in April 2003. The East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust will have a gross annual pay bill of approximately £100 million, one per cent. of which would be £750,000 for April to December 2003 or £1 million for 2003–04.

  Exact figures are not available as individual NHS staff members' pay and deductions are not collected centrally.

  Mixed Wards
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were treated in hospital in mixed wards in each year from 1995 to 2001; and if he will make a statement. [52588]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting more than six months to see a consultant for the first consultation in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [53108]

  Jacqui Smith
  Three health authorities. East, North West and South Lancashire, were responsible for commissioning health care on behalf of the majority of
  259W
  the population of Lancashire. The following data are an aggregate of those three organisations. On 1 April 2002, health authorities in Cumbria and Lancashire merged to form Cumbria and Lancashire health authority.

  The total number of patients, following a general practitioner referral, waiting over six months (26 weeks) for a first out-patient consultant appointment, is set out in the table:

  Number of patients

  December 1997

  918

  December 1998

  2,716

  December 1999

  3,176

  December 2000

  2,016

  December 2001

  1,021

  Reconfiguration Panel
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the independent reconfiguration panel has met. [53228]

  Ms Blears
  None. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which will offer authoritative advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on referred proposals for NHS service change, is expected to start work in autumn 2002.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of the latest generation of medicines to those who suffer mental illness. [53011]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been a consistent increase in the numbers of prescriptions for atypical antipsychotic drugs over the past five years. In 1997 atypical antipsychotic prescription items dispensed in the community in England accounted for 257,000 or 6·2 per cent. of the total of 4,157,000 prescription items for all antipsychotics. In 2001 the figures were 1,842,000 or 39 per cent. out of 4,718,000.

  Endometriosis
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a decision on the application by the SHE Trust for DOH Section 64 funding of a comparative survey of endometriosis. [53447]

  Yvette Cooper
  Notification of the decision on this application was posted to the SHE Trust on 11 April 2002. The SHE Trust were not successful in their application.

  Learning Disabilities
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking"to encourage the involvement of the(a) independent and (b) charitable sectors in the provision of care for adults with learning disabilities. [53602]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy for improving services for people with learning disabilities is set out in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21 Century" published in March 2001. It is based on the four principles of rights, independence,260W
  choice and inclusion. We recognise that effective partnerships are key to the delivery of our policy. We work closely with all the key interests including the charitable and independent sector to provide new opportunities for people with learning disabilities to lead full and active lives.

  "Valuing People" required local councils to establish Learning Disability Partnership Boards by 31 October 2001. Partnership Boards are required to ensure that local independent providers and the voluntary sector are fully engaged in their work. The "Valuing People" support team is working with Partnership Boards to help build strong partnerships locally.

  Representatives of voluntary organisations were actively involved in developing the White Paper and we continue to work with them in its implementation through their membership of the Learning Disability Task Force. We also provide funding from the Implementation Support Fund announced in "Valuing People" and from the discretionary programme of section 64 grants (approximately £1.3 million in 2002–03) from the Department to voluntary organisations to further our objective of achieving social inclusion for people with learning disabilities.

  Sellafield
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates(a) ministers and (b) officials in his Department held meetings with the Irish Government to discuss the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield between 1 January and 5 October 2001; where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; and which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting. [53382]

  Yvette Cooper
  For details of the two officials' meetings since 1 January 2001, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 442W.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on lung cancer treatment in each year since 1997. [53594]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of NHS services in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of a particular disease.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of cases of lung cancer in the last five years can be attributed to smoking. [53595]

  Yvette Cooper
  These data are not routinely collected. The latest estimate of the proportion of deaths from lung cancer was made by the Health Education Authority who estimated in their 1998 report, "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995", that in 1995 84 per cent. of all deaths from lung cancer (90 per cent. men, 73 per cent. women) in the United Kingdom were caused by smoking.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing home residents previously funded under preserved rights have moved from their existing care home as a result of their reassessment; [53769]

  (2) how many nursing home residents previously assisted under preserved rights qualify for the direct payments scheme. [53763]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the outcomes of care assessments of those people whose care was previously funded under preserved rights is not available.

  Direct payments cannot be used to purchase long term residential care. We expect that the majority of people who had preserved rights will continue to receive their existing care packages. However, for those that have been assessed as not needing residential care, direct payments will he available as an alternative.

  Oxfordshire SSA
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department have made to other Departments on the SSA in relation to Oxfordshire. [54155]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have made no such representations about the personal social service standard spending assessment formulae as they relate specifically to Oxfordshire.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has made to other Departments on funding for social services spending by counties in preparation for the Comprehensive Spending Review. [54156]

  Jacqui Smith
  No specific representation has been made in respect of counties over and above other local authority groups. However there is regular dialogue with representatives from other government departments, and local authorities, throughout the spending review process so that the views of all local authorities, including counties, can be taken into account.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with representatives of general practitioners in respect of the additional costs related to the healthcare of the families of asylum seekers; and what plans he has to recognise such costs in the allocation of funds to primary care trusts. [54270]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had no recent discussions with representatives of general practitioners (GPs) in respect of costs related to the healthcare of the families of asylum seekers. Allocations made to health authorities and primary care trusts include resources for all their population including the families of asylum seekers. To support their work with asylum seekers, GPs can also bid for extra resources through personal medical service pilots, or local development schemes can be initiated to provide for the payment of fees under Section 36 of the NHS (Primary Care) Act 1997.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 120W, what discussions he has had with the NHS Appointments Commission on the reason the application from Mrs. L. Irving of Culcheth, Warrington was not acknowledged; and if he will make a statement. [54733]

  Ms Blears
  The National Health Service appointments commission has confirmed that, because of a clerical error, candidates not called for interview for non-executive appointments to Warrington Primary Care Trust have still not been properly informed that they had been unsuccessful. One of the candidates involved was Mrs. L Irving. The chief executive of the appointments commission will shortly be writing a letter of apology to all the candidates involved.

  NHS Plan (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlay the rejection of the bids from Newcastle Primary Care Trust and the City of Newcastle upon Tyne for support from the NHS Plan intermediate care funds. [53535]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 May 2002]: In November 2001, Department of Health Regional Offices were invited to submit bids against £66 million of capital funding available for intermediate care. Unfortunately, owing to the large number of bids received, it was not possible to fund all the bids from the funding available.

  I announced allocation of the "first phase" of £46 million to 80 projects on 6 March 2002. The bid from Newcastle was not included among the bids that could be funded at that time. However, it may be possible to fund further bids as part of a further phase of funding yet to be allocated.

  Lymphoedema
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training doctors receive in the diagnosis and treatment of lymphoedema; and if he will make a statement. [50489]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The content and standard of postgraduate medical training for specialist medicine is the responsibility of the United Kingdom competent authority, the specialist training authority (STA). The STA takes advice from the appropriate Royal College, who appreciate the requirements presented by different conditions and develop their training curricula as appropriate. Doctors increasingly recognise that lymphoedema requires skilled management to maximise the quality of life for people with this condition.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse incidents involving(a) electrically powered and (b) manual wheelchairs have been reported to the Medical Devices Agency in each of the past three years; and what steps he is taking to improve (i) the comprehensiveness of such reports and (ii) their utility in identifying and remedying systematic faults. [48818]
  263W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) has a specific section that deals with adverse incident reports relating to all wheeled mobility equipment. The numbers of reports received by MDA held on their database relating specifically to manual and powered wheelchairs are as follows:

  Year

  Manual

  Powered

  2001

  641

  471

  2000

  624

  466

  1999

  598

  374

  A specific detailed form has been compiled and is widely available to assist reporters in providing sufficient detail on each adverse incident. The format and layout is regularly reviewed to ensure that changes are made when appropriate. The form is available from the MDA web site.

  MDA issue guidance at the beginning of each year on the incident reporting system to provide details on how to report an incident, what other action to take and what action MDA may take following up on the report. The content is reviewed each year to allow updates to be made where necessary. In addition, MDA meet regularly with professional, service, user groups and manufacturers and periodically use these meetings to promote the need for reporting incidents and emphasising the need to provide comprehensive information on the product, its service and usage history as well as details of the incident itself.

  To assist in identifying trends of problems with specific equipment, root cause analysis is used on all reports on the MDA database. Any trends found are then investigated and corrective action initiated where necessary.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52832]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Department's library and information service is responsible for central purchasing of magazines and periodicals for library use and for retention by individual units. Suppliers, who have been chosen via competitive tendering every three to five years, are used. New supply contracts were awarded in October 2001, for the supply of newspapers and weekly magazines and for journals.

  The Department's regional offices have their own libraries with separate purchasing arrangements, and there are small direct purchases by individual units. Expenditure details for the whole Department are kept on a central system held by the Department's finance division, but do not differentiate between newspapers and magazines/journals.

  The approximate total annual cost is £317,000 for about 680 titles and 1,500 copies. Discounts have been included where known.

  Anti-TNFa Drugs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts on(a) the implementation timetable for anti-TNFa drugs and (b) the implications for budgets. [52253]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: There has been no guidance issued for the implementation of NICE appraisal of anti-TNF drugs. However, on 5 December 2001, the Government announced that it would meet its commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. The overall expected costs of NICE guidance are taken into account when NHS budgets are set.

  Non-executive NHS Trust Directors
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the requisite period of notice is for non-executive directors of acute NHS trusts in cases of trust merger. [53131]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 May 2002]: There is no standard period of notice. Non-executive posts on national health service boards are public appointments, not jobs. They are made for a fixed period, normally no longer than four years. Where a trust is dissolved as a result of a merger, non-executive appointments are automatically terminated. Serving board members will normally be aware well in advance of mergers taking place.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the non-executive directors of each of the strategic health authorities are; and how many and what percentage of the total are members of ethnic minorities. [53132]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 May 2002]: The names of those appointed have been placed in the Library. Of the 155 non-executive board members so far appointed, nine (5.8 per cent.) are from ethnic minorities.

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost has been to date to the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust of the suspension of the transfer of health services between Crawley Hospital and East Surrey Hospital; [51929]

  (2) if he will publish the advice given to the south east region NHS Executive by the Surrey and Sussex healthcare NHS trust before his decision to suspend the transfer of services between Crawley and east Surrey hospitals announced on 27 March 2001. [51931]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: As indicated in the written answer given to the hon. Member on 3 April 2001, Official Report, volume 366, column 140W, the total cost of maintaining services at both sites was approximately £239,000 up to January 2002 and approximately £53,000 per month thereafter. This would give a total approximate cost of £292,000 up to the end of April 2002. Negotiations on the service and financial

  265W
  framework for the Surrey and Sussex health authority are still on-going therefore it is not possible, at this time, to give a final confirmation of the total cost.

  Information provided to Department officials and the subsequent advice those officials provide to Ministers is confidential.

  Wessex Neurological Centre
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to restore operations on the neurosurgical lists of the Wessex Neurological Centre; and if he will make a statement. [54030]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: A clinical governance review by Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust identified the need to strengthen senior anaesthetic cover in the neurosciences intensive care unit at the Wessex Neurological Centre. In the short term this could only be achieved by redeploying anaesthetists from the neuro-operating theatres. This necessitated a temporary reduction in operating time. From 15 April only emergency surgery and urgent cases from the waiting list have been treated. The trust envisages that a full service will resume on 13 May.

  The trust is taking action to recruit additional anaesthetists.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities are available in the United Kingdom for anthrax vaccine production; and if it is produced by biotechnological methodologies. [53900]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Anthrax vaccine in the United Kingdom is produced at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down.

  It is produced from the vaccine strain of Bacillus anthracis (known as the Sterne strain) using biotechnological methods, but is not a recombinant product.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who received a bare stent in a percutaneous coronary intervention were readmitted for a repeat re-stent or coronary bypass grafting procedure in the last five years for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the total cost to the NHS of such readmissions. [54349]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Department does not collect the data relating to the number of patients who received a bare stent in a percutaneous coronary intervention and were later readmitted for a repeat re-stent or coronary bypass graft. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate the cost to the national health service of such readmissions.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if readmission procedures for in-stent restenosis are recorded as separate patient episodes. [54350]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: I can confirm that readmission for in-stent restenosis are recorded as separate patient episodes.

  Heart Bypass Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart bypass operations have been carried out in the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [53283]

  yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Patients who need revascularisation may be treated by angioplasty (PTCA) a non-surgical intervention to open arteries that have become blocked, or by coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), a surgical procedure which bypasses blocked arteries. As the technology has improved angioplasty has become the appropriate treatment for an increasing proportion of patients. A table providing data on the number of finished consultant episodes for angioplasty and coronary artery bypass in England for the last 10 years has been placed in the Library.

  Information about operations undertaken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Diabetes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what projections were provided by his Department to the Wanless Review Team for(a) the prevalence of diabetes in the years to 2010–11 and (b) the reduction in the number of people with undiagnosed diabetes by 2010–11; [54653]

  (2) what assumptions underlie the Wanless report concerning the relationship between more effective care for diabetes and lower expenditure on coronary heart disease and renal disease; [54650]

  (3) what proportion of the cost of implementing the NSF for diabetes, as projected by the Wan less report, is attributable to (a) expanded treatment programmes and (b) an increase in diagnosed prevalence. [54651]

  Jacqui Smith
  During the early years of implementation of the diabetes national service framework (NSF) we would expect the majority of available resources to be directed towards improvements in treatment for those people with diabetes who have not received systematic high quality treatment in the past. In subsequent years, the cost of implementing the NSF is likely to be increasingly attributable to the rising prevalence of diabetes and the maintenance of a high quality of care across the patient population.

  Optimal blood glucose control and tight blood pressure control are two key interventions in the diabetes NSF. Evidence indicates that these interventions may reduce the rate of certain complications of diabetes, including renal failure and heart attack, which might therefore lead to reduced expenditure on coronary heart disease and renal disease.

  The Department provided the following prevalence projections to the Wanless review team for diabetes in England for the years up to 2011:

  Year

  Diagnosed prevalence

  Total patients (million)

  2002

  2·63

  1·316

  2003

  2·70

  1·355

  2004

  2·78

  1·399

  2005

  2·87

  1·448

  267W

  Year

  Diagnosed prevalence

  Total patients (million)

  2006

  2·97

  1·502

  2007

  3·07

  1·561

  2008

  3·19

  1·624

  2009

  3·31

  1·689

  2010

  3·44

  1·759

  2011

  3·57

  1·832

  Additionally, officials undertook some sensitivity analysis on the prevalence rates for the Wanless team that focused on different scenarios regarding the size and integration of the undiagnosed diabetes population into the system.

  The Wanless report has informed decisions about the overall level of funding that the national health service has received. The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in NHS history, with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. a year in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  Renal Failure
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the principal causes for the increase in end stage renal failure in the last five years. the Minister of State, Department of Health. [54652]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is a world-wide increase in end stage renal failure, although the number of new patients in England still falls behind other European countries. The principal causes of end stage renal failure include diabetes and hypertension, and the effects of increasing age. As the incidence of diabetes and hypertension (which are both major risk factors) increase so does the number of people who develop renal complications. People with diabetes make up 16 per cent. of all new patients with end stage renal failure. Additionally people from ethnic minority groups are at greater risk of developing the disease and the number of patients being treated in these groups is rising as the ethnic population ages.

  NHS trust name

  Scheme description

  University College London Hospitals

  Acute rationalisation

  The Dudley Group of Hospitals

  New DGH

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  Single site development/centralisation of acute hospital services

  Bromley Hospitals

  New DGH

  Swindon and Marlborough

  New DGH for Swindon

  Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital

  Reconfiguration of services

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  Consolidation project

  King's Healthcare

  New block

  West Middlesex University Hospital

  Acute rationalisation

  St George's Hospital

  Neurol Cardiac Unit

  South Durham Health Care

  Redevelopment of Bishop Auckland General Hospital

  Leeds Community and MH Services Teaching

  Reprovision of mental health services, High Royds

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  Royal United Hospital Bath redevelopment

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital—Phase 5

  Berkshire Healthcare

  Prospect Park mental health redevelopment

  Northumbria Health Care

  Redevelopment of Hexham General Hospital

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh

  Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Phase 4

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals

  Centralisation of acute services

  Barnet PCT

  Edgware Community Hospital

  Bury Healthcare

  Fairfield reprovison

  Mayday Healthcare

  New ward block and day surgery unit

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  Maternity and acute development, Hull Royal Infirmary

  Isle of Wight Healthcare

  Development at St. Mary's, IOW

  Southampton University Hospitals

  Southampton General—cancer care relocation

  Warrington Primary Care Trust
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications were received for the post of Chairman of Warrington PCT from(a) Warrington, North constituency and (b) Warrington, South constituency; and what percentage of applicants from each constituency were interviewed. [54227]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Ten applications were received, four of which were from candidates living in Warrington, North and six living in Warrington, South. All of the three candidates interviewed lived in Warrington, South.

  Ambulances
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from local authorities on the funding of the ambulance services; and if he will make a statement. [54441]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Department is not aware of any representations that have been made by local authorities on the funding of the ambulance service.

  Building Projects
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will Fist the building projects under construction; and what coolant will be used for the building services water chilling system for such projects. [52052]

  Ms Blears
  A list of building schemes currently under construction and with a total cost of over £2.5 million, including VAT, is given in the table. Information on the coolant used in building services chilled water systems is not collected centrally. However, all refrigerants used in chilled water systems should comply with EC Regulation EC 2037–2000 which came into force on 1 October 2000. The NHS Estates Model Engineering Specification Rev 3 November 1997, MES C10 Refrigerant Plant-General advises the use of refrigerant R134a or 407c and its associated blends, which are ozone friendly.
  269W

  NHS trust name

  Scheme description

  Northumbria Health Care

  Phase II Development of Wansbeck GH

  Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals

  Newcastle strategic review

  Surrey Hampshire Borders

  Farnham Community Resource Centre

  West London Mental Health

  Charing cross Mental Health Unit

  West London Mental Health

  Security Fencing at Broadmoor

  Royston Buntingford and Bishop's Stortford PCT

  Herts and Essex Hospital

  Luton and Dunstable Hospitals

  St. Mary's Wing

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals

  Women's and Children's and Day Surgery Units

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Façade renovation at Pilgrim Hospital

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health

  Enfield Community Medium Secure Unit

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  Radiology Unit

  East London and the City Mental Health

  Mental health reprovision

  North Staffordshire Hospital

  Critical Care/UGMS

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare

  New entry building at Rampton Hospital

  Thames Gateway

  Sheppey Community Hospital

  Cornwall Healthcare

  Bodmin Hospital

  Bromley Hospitals

  Managed Equipment Service

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospital

  Clinical Science extension

  Greenwich Healthcare

  Managed Equipment Service

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  Hull Royal Infirmary—maternity and acute development

  Leicester and Rutland Healthcare

  Loughborough Hospital Phase II

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull

  Medical wards development—Phase 2

  Nottingham City Hospital

  Staff residences

  Parkside Healthcare

  Kingsbury Hospital Learning Disabilities Reprovision

  West London Mental Health

  Sports and Visitors Centre at Broadmoor

  North Durham Healthcare

  Redevelopment of Shotley Bridge Hospital to Community Hospital

  Cornwall Healthcare

  Liskeard Community Hospital

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals

  Replacement of existing energy centre, RVI

  South Durham Health Care

  Sedgefield Community Hospital

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University Hospital

  A&E modernisation

  Wolverhampton Healthcare

  Penn redevelopment

  Princess Alexandra Hospital

  Staff accommodation

  Hammersmith Hospitals

  Critical Care Unit

  Parkside Healthcare

  Paddington community Hospital Elderly Continuing Care

  Parkside Healthcare

  Princess Louise Hospital Elderly Continuing Care

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Day Case Unit

  Mid Devon Primary Care

  New Centre for Health, Okehampton

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  Extension and alteration to A&E Department

  South Downs Health

  Mill View Hospital Phase 2

  Cornwall Healthcare

  Western Mental Health, Cambourne and Redruth

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  Haematology Unit

  Bexley PCT

  Erith health Centre

  Luton and Dunstable Hospitals

  Out-Patient department

  Local Health Partnerships

  Mental health unit

  Poole Hospitals

  Refurbishment of operating theatres

  Whittington Hospital

  Whittington Hospital—enabling works

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

  Walsgrave Hospital—Radiotherapy Department

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  Catering Service

  North West London Hospitals

  ACAD Equipment

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  Re-development of surgical facilities

  Mid-Sussex

  Residential accommodation

  West London Mental Health

  Security scheme at Broadmoor

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

  Radiology Department

  Value for Money
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, in percentage terms, the value for money changes in the operation of his Department in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [52275]

  Ms Blears
  The 1998 public service agreement set targets for efficiency and other value for money gains in departmental operations for 1999–2000,2000–01 and 2001–02. Information about progress on meeting this PSA target was published in the Department's 2001 departmental report, a copy of which is in the Library. This recorded that we were on course to deliver the target.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the income from those NHS prescriptions which are paid for and (b) the cost of administering free NHS prescriptions during the last year for which figures are available. [52590]

  Ms Blears
  Income from prescription charges in 2000–01 in respect of prescriptions written by general practitioners and dispensed in the community in England, was £389 million. Income from charges collected by national health service trusts is not separately identifiable.

  These costs are not identified separately within the administrative costs of the Department and NHS bodies in England.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

NATO Membership
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conditions for NATO membership they consider to be appropriate in assessing the acceptability of candidate states.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the key conditions remain as set out by allied leaders at the 1999 NATO Washington summit. We want the alliance to extend invitations to countries which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership; whose inclusion would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the alliance; and whose inclusion would enhance overall European security and stability.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, she did not explain the overall political and strategic interests of the alliance. Some large questions underlie that. For example, does she consider that it should be a condition of membership that applicant states should be able to make a substantial contribution to NATO military forces—which would imply a limited enlargement—or, rather, that their inclusion would contribute to the broader security of the European region as a whole, which would imply a much broader enlargement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is the security of the region as a whole that is crucial, but within that some specific issues may be discussed alt the Prague summit in November this year. It is a fact that threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are key security challenges for the West—for us in Europe as well as for our allies in the United States. So, at Prague, as well as considering the broad strategic issues, we shall consider ways to maintain levels of interoperability between allies; we shall focus on the capabilities most needed to deal with those threats; and, of course, we shall look for new ways for Europe and the United States to work together. The threats are not just in Europe or the United States, so interoperability between the two sets of forces will be crucial.
The noble Lord should not read too much into numbers at present. The numbers, and the countries themselves, will be decided at Prague.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is it intended that new members will subscribe to all of the articles of the NATO treaty, or will they be selective? For example, will they adhere to Article 5, which states that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us? That was invoked after September 11th.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, they will be expected to abide by all the articles of the NATO treaty. I can also tell the noble Lord that the accession of each and every country will be a matter for ratification by member Parliaments—by this Parliament as well as by other parliaments of current member states.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Government given thought to the problem of frontiers? Many of the new members—such as Poland and Hungary—have large elements of their population living outside their frontiers. The European Union demands strong frontiers. I gather that about 1 million Poles live in Belarus and Ukraine. How will the Minister explain the Government's policy with regard to a strong frontier to people who have been used to crossing frontiers to visit graveyards, attend memorials, funerals and so on?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, those issues are covered by NATO's membership action plans, which vary with individual aspirant countries according to discussion on their possible membership. Those action plans were launched at the 1999 summit and have included a clear programme of work towards meeting the standards for membership required by NATO. As the noble Lord would expect, there has been some extremely candid feedback, but the plans cover political, economic, defence, resource and security aspects, which comprehend issues about borders.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, what will be NATO's response if an applicant country points out that some existing member states may not be able to make the sort of contribution that equity would suggest is reasonable?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an interesting hypothetical question. The fact is that we expect all members of NATO to live up not only to the articles of the NATO treaty, to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred, but to all the obligations of NATO membership. I am not sure what my noble friend has in mind in asking his question, although perhaps I may guess, but I assure your Lordships that it will be important for all countries to abide by the same standard.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while enthusiasm among central and east European countries for EU enlargement may be a bit wobbly at the moment, their commitment to enlargement of NATO is strong, provided that NATO is not undermined by duplication, talk of autonomous

1139
forces, and so on? Did she note the speech by the chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union, General Häggland, yesterday? He rightly asked whether it made any sense for there to be parallel crisis management organisations within the region; he deplored duplication and suggested better ways to develop NATO that would be more appealing to both applicants and its present members. Is it not time for a change of policy in the direction suggested by General Haggland?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not entirely accept the noble Lord's surmise about some EU countries being wobbly on enlargement. There are certainly those within countries who express some difficulties, but I do not think that EU governments as a whole are "wobbly", to use the noble Lord's word.
As for NATO, I agree that current members of NATO want it to expand, because it is vital to our collective defence. But the essential point is that NATO must adapt further if it is to continue to be relevant. In answering the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I mentioned interoperability and how we need to focus NATO's capabilities in new ways. But we should not view the European common security policy arrangements as either rival or duplicate arrangements. The arrangements should harmonise with and complement each other.
Lord Roper: My Lords, will the Minister think again about the answer that she gave to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire about ratification? Is it, in fact, the case that either the United Kingdom or Canada must ratify NATO enlargement? Is that not a prerogative act in those countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I specifically asked about that point and was assured that all the Parliaments of current NATO countries would be required to ratify accession. That is my understanding, but, if that is not the case, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect how Field Marshal Lord Ismay famously described the purpose of NATO as keeping the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down? What is the purpose of NATO now, in the eyes of the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, quite a lot has happened since those remarks were made. However, there is a serious point about the purpose of NATO. Does NATO still have a relevance today? It certainly does.
NATO's invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty after 11th September sent the strongest possible sign of allied support to the United States. NATO redeployed its Mediterranean standing naval forces to
1140
the eastern Mediterranean and an airborne early warning system to the United States, freeing up United States assets for operations elsewhere. I could not give the noble Lord stronger arguments for the continued existence of NATO than those.

Roadworks
2.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards reducing the disruption to road users caused by roadworks and encouraging the co-ordination of roadworks; and whether they consider such progress to be satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we are determined to reduce disruption from works in the street. Last April, we introduced powers allowing highway authorities to levy charges on utility works that are not completed to deadline. We are also piloting powers allowing authorities to levy lane rental on utilities for the duration of the works.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Do Her Majesty's Government concur with the conclusion of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which recently reported that the backlog of necessary maintenance work had reached record levels, in excess of £7 billion? It was calculated that the problem would take more than eight years to rectify, ignoring any new holes in the road.
In the light of the Minister's reference to lane rentals and fines, is it not curious that local authorities and highway authorities, which together represent more than 50 per cent of those who make holes in the road, are under no financial strictures? Fines and lane rentals are paid to local authorities. Who will check up on the authorities themselves?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not acquainted with the figures that the noble Lord gave for the amount of maintenance required. However, as he knows, the Government are providing over £30 billion for local road maintenance over the time-scale of the 10-year transport plan. That is £9 billion above the funding level for the previous 10 years. There is an important issue to deal with there.
As the noble Lord knows, there are lane rentals and there is overcharging, both of which are designed to improve co-ordination and reduce disruption as much as possible. That gets at some of the offenders. It is important that co-ordination improves and that the Government should set out examples of good practice and put pressure on local authorities to improve standards.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the difficulties is that the roadworks are there, causing disruption, but there is nobody doing any work? Sometimes, I think that workmen on those sites are an endangered species or a collector's item. Can we find a way of ensuring that, when the necessary roadworks are there, people get on with it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, like my noble friend, I have seen such roadworks on many occasions. Pressure should be put on, and there should be a sense that the works must be done in the most efficient way possible, as quickly as possible. Otherwise, people get utterly fed up.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, this is a constitutional occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, always asks a question about holes in the road.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as always, I am deeply obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
I thank my noble friend Lord Geddes for raising the matter. Is the Minister aware that such efforts as I have been able to make to diminish this important nuisance have, so far, had the notable but totally unwelcome effect of stimulating those responsible into digging more holes and leaving them unoccupied for longer than ever before? Can the Minister advise me on what I can do to persuade the Government to join the right side—for once—and attempt to curb that increasing nuisance?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, most of my oral briefing on the question related to the gargantuan efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, to deal with the problem.
What can be done about it? The more the issue is kept to the fore, the more pressure there is on the people engaged, the local authorities and the utilities to do the work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, bus operators are summoned increasingly frequently before the traffic commissioners to explain the unreliability of their service. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities are also summoned to explain what they are doing about roadworks and other causes of unreliability, such as traffic congestion?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern that local authorities are major players in the extent to which roads are disrupted. I will pass on the noble Lord's suggestion as regards delays in relation to local bus companies.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while sympathising with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not the real answer to his question that if he is in a hole he should stop digging?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I sympathise with that advice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, willl the Minister accept that not only are we talking about a nuisance but that once again motorists are being treated with contempt by the Government and those responsible? No one ever gives advice on where the works are being carried on and stopping traffic. It is not necessary to provide printed notices: all that is required is a blackboard and a piece of chalk to put a notice on public display in the right place and at the right time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government are displaying any contempt towards motorists. However, I entirely agree that notice is important. It is important to inform people about what is happening, why and how long it will take.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that roadworks cause traffic jams, which do not help the greener environment but cause pollution? We need to get that message across to the public in general and to the local authorities in particular so that they do not set up so many roadworks at the same time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that roadworks almost invariably cause traffic congestion and that that is bad for a variety of reasons, including the pollution it causes. However, we are introducing charges for over-running the timetable and lane rentals in order to try to reduce what we all agree is a terrible problem.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in Oxfordshire at present twice as many deaths are caused by pollution coming mainly from traffic as are caused by road accidents?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the figures in relation to Oxfordshire.

Foot and Mouth: Legality of Cull
2.52 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the contiguous cull in the face of the foot and mouth outbreak was legal, was approved by the European Union and was tested in the courts; and whether veterinary resources to deal with the outbreak were the same as they were in 1997.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the contiguous cull was legal and was carried out using powers contained in the Animal Health Act 1981. The European Commission was at all times aware of the UK's culling policy and approved of the approach. The operation of the cull was tested and upheld in the English and Scottish courts.
The number of permanent veterinary staff at the beginning of the outbreak was broadly similar in 1997. Following confirmation of foot and mouth disease in 2001 the department moved rapidly to deploy additional veterinary resources.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Animal Health Act 1981, which he cited, begins by stating that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, in any case cause to be slaughtered various animals and it goes on to list the categories in which the power may be exercised? Does that not imply that if in legal terms he is to be reasonable and in compliance with the Wednesbury rules on evidence, particular circumstances must be considered in each case? If that is so, how can he take the Westerhall and Winslade judgments, which the judges admit were considered on particular evidence, to apply to the blanket three-kilometre cull?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Question was about the contiguous cull and the Scottish judges included the three-kilometre cull. On the two occasions when the contiguous cull was tested in the courts it was upheld. There was no challenge to the general operation of the cull; therefore, all precedent indicates that the cull was legal.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most important aspect is that he has powers to act quickly and so contain the outbreak? Does he have those powers now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Animal Health Act 1981 provides a number of powers which the Minister can use. There are some gaps in those powers which were brought to the attention of the House at the time of the the Animal Health Bill but regrettably the House rejected the proposed remedy. There is therefore some gap in our armoury.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, with respect to the third part of my noble friend's question about the shortage of veterinary personnel at the outbreak of the recent epidemic, will the Minister consider setting up an organisation, similar to the Territorial Army, of reserved trained veterinarians drawn from retired personnel from the ministry, practices and universities to supply that manpower need when an emergency such as the recent foot and mouth outbreak demands it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is already such an arrangement. We were able to deploy 2,500 temporary veterinary inspectors during the course of the disease
1144
and had the help of a further 650 people from overseas. However, as the noble Lord implies, it may be sensible to put that on a more formal and mechanistic basis. We will be examining the matter in the course of the current inquiries into the conduct of the disease.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is now appropriate to put on record the sterling work of the veterinary service and others in the profession who in difficult circumstances did a first-class job on behalf of the British people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with my noble friend. I believe that the whole House will endorse what he says. In very difficult circumstances, sometimes subject to serious local pressures and criticisms, the men and women of the State Veterinary Service performed an absolutely sterling job, as did those who were temporarily deployed to tackle the horrendous disease.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister's department now staffed to a level which could actively and effectively implement a contingency plan? How many staff of his department have taken leave of absence due to post-traumatic stress syndrome arising from the foot and mouth outbreak since November last year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of statistics regarding absences. A number of people have been absent but I shall need to consult my personnel staff if it is appropriate to give a reply to that question.
The current staffing levels are as indicated in my Answer; they are broadly similar to what they were five years ago. There are some vacancies which are being filled. Indeed, we have filled a substantial number over the past four years. The interim contingency plan is operable with the number of staff provided. We can also trigger the deployment of additional resources from the private veterinary service, from students and from retired vets.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the Minister said that he relies on the Winslade case to justify the contiguous cull. Can he tell the House what scientific evidence was made available to the court in the case which was brought at short notice, as I hope he will be able to confirm? For example, were the papers written by Professor Donaldson, of the Pirbright Institute, made available in evidence to the court before judgment was passed? If not, how can the Minister possibly say that that case justified the contiguous cull?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can clearly say so because that was the decision of the judge and the court on the only occasion in the English courts on which the validity of the cull has been challenged. We were successful in resisting the contiguous cull challenge. In regard to the evidence, I would need to check the books, but it was effectively the same evidence which was received by Ministers and was available to

1145
veterinary surgeons on the spot in determining exposure to the disease. That is the whole basis of the contiguous cull.
The noble Lord and those who pursue this question are raking up potential difficulties which understandably existed among those most directly involved but which hide the fact that the cull was necessary in order to contain the disease. The legality was never in question. The appropriateness of the strategy is for others to judge; nevertheless it was carried out most effectively by the State Veterinary Service.
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on. There is a most important Question to come and we need to be fair to all questioners.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords —
Noble Lords: Order! Sit down!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl is pointing at the clock. We are in the 24th minute and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has a very important Question on the Order Paper. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, courteously gave way.

Middle East: Holy Places
3 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the internationalisation of the holy places in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and by the state of Israel.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to ensuring access to holy places throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories. We remain concerned at the continuing stand-off at the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem. Some progress has been made through negotiations, including the release of a number of civilians and the provision of food. There are indications that a formula has been found which may be acceptable to the parties. We hope to receive further news on that soon.
I should also point out that Her Majesty's Government have condemned the further appalling loss of civilian life as a result of the suicide bombing yesterday evening in Rishon le Zion. The cycle of violence has to stop. Both sides must demonstrate,
1146
through their actions, their commitment to peace. That requires a withdrawal, a sustainable ceasefire and the resumption of dialogue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said this afternoon in your Lordships' House. I agree with her that the cycle of violence will only be deepened by the appalling deaths yesterday of 15 Israeli citizens in a suicide attack. Such actions retard the objective of achieving the goal of peace. Neither the blind violence of terrorism nor the violence of war in revenge can create a way forward.
As the siege at the Church of the Holy Nativity enters its fifth week, can the Minister shed any light on the debacle which took place yesterday when the careful arrangements agreed for the removal of 13 Palestinian militants from the church and the subsequent release of the remaining captives were reduced to chaos? Can she tell noble Lords how that occurred and whether Her Majesty's Government are now playing any role in brokering a way forward? Furthermore, can she shed any light on the condition of the captives who remain in the church? What access do they have to food and water?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the suicide bombing incident yesterday was truly appalling. We recognise that President Arafat has condemned the attack, which is welcome. However, I think that Israel has a right to expect more. President Arafat has demonstrated unequivocally that he is prepared to take action against those responsible and to try to put in place measures to prevent further attacks.
With regard to the position in Bethlehem, I understand that this matter is still under discussion. Various newspaper reports have been written about what went on yesterday. What I can say to noble Lords is that Italy is a possible final destination for some of the armed Palestinians in the church. I cannot confirm the number because that is still a matter of dispute. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been in touch with various parties and the Italian Government are considering a request to take the Palestinian militants.
At this stage, I am not in a position to comment any further. There is still a certain amount of confusion as regards who said what to whom yesterday. No doubt that confusion will unravel in due course. We must hope that a solution is found as quickly as possible. As I came into the Chamber this afternoon, the most recent update was that we still do not have a definitive position.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves with the Minister's condemnation of the recent suicide bombing incident which has led to terrible casualties. We express our profound sympathy for those who have been affected.
Turning to the Question before the House, perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether, in the slightly longer term—given the peace conference that is to take place—any consideration has been given to the proposals raised at the Camp David and Taba

1147
negotiations; that is, giving international standing to the square mile which constitutes almost all of the most crucial holy places within both Israel and Palestinian territory: the Temple Mount, the Church of the Holy Nativity, the Wailing Wall and so forth? Discussions at the time turned on agreeing a form of "Vatican" settlement; that is, an area that would be neutral and guaranteed by all the great powers.
Although I realise that the Minister will not be able to respond at the moment, would she consider whether some form of international control and even some possible "internationalisation" of that small area of holy places in Jerusalem might help to move away a little from the genuine horror of the events at the Church of the Holy Nativity and, before that, the conflicts which arose over the status of and access to the Temple Mount?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that the status of Jerusalem and its environs which comprise and embrace the holy places mentioned by the noble Baroness has been a matter which the parties had decided would be for "final status" talks. It is a great sadness to note that, given where we are at the moment, those final status talks now appear to be little more than a remote dream. However, I hope and believe that these issues will be revisited once more.
The noble Baroness is quite right to remind the House that the United States has proposed an international conference. We very much support that proposal because we want to re-establish the political process. We do not believe that anything can be solved through this unending cycle of violence. In the course of the next few months, but before the conference is due to be held, we shall be considering all the items that should be included on a conference agenda. I am sure that the status of the holy places will form a part of those considerations.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches also endorse the words of the noble Baroness, deploring the senseless and appalling slaughter outside Tel Aviv last night. It represents one more swathe of blood in this ghastly scenario. However, in even uttering such words, one wonders what good it is doing: we go on wringing our hands while the situation gets worse and worse.
Following on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I wish to put to the Minister one question on the matter of the holy places. Did not the Barak plan propose quite detailed arrangements in Jerusalem for safeguarding the holy places on an international basis? The plan would have assured access for all those in the four quarters of Jerusalem. Is not that the kind of plan for which we should now be striving? Regrettably, and for reasons that I still do not fully understand, Chairman Arafat and his colleagues turned the plan down.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that the negotiations held at Camp David on the
1148
Barak plan fell short of the permanent status settlement which all parties had sought. Of course the noble Lord is right to note that both the Israeli and the Palestinian people continue to suffer as a result. However, unfortunately the issues with regard to permanent status were simply not negotiable at the time.
I think that the noble Lord was a little unfair to say that all we are doing is wringing our hands on this issue. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in constant touch with their opposite numbers on this issue. They are doing everything they can to argue for a peace process to be taken forward. I hope that noble Lords do not doubt my noble friends' sincerity in that endeavour.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Pitkeathley and the Baroness Billingham set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Tax Credits Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 26,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 27 to 32,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 33 to 43,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 44 to 47,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 48 to 55,

Schedule 5,

Clause 56,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 57 to 65.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathleyrose to call attention to the Government's 10-year plan to improve service quality in the NHS; and to move for Papers.

1149
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is both a pleasure and a privilege to open this important debate this afternoon. I cannot but begin by telling your Lordships what a terribly important date this is for me personally. Exactly one year ago today, almost to the hour, I was in an operating theatre at the Middlesex Hospital undergoing the last in a long series of life-threatening operations from which, as your Lordships will see, I have made a miraculous recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, so today, on this very important anniversary, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I come to praise the NHS, and I have every reason to do so.
On 8th May last year, I was surrounded by the most skilled of surgeons, the most well equipped of intensive care units, the most able nurses and the most committed ancillary staff that any gravely ill person could wish for. The care given to me was extended to my family, who were always kept fully informed, consulted and involved in the procedures. That care was exemplified perhaps by the nurses who came in to sit with them and me while they were waiting to see if I would recover consciousness, even they were supposed to be off duty.
Visitors who came in to see me as I began to recover were apt to say that this was the NHS at its best. It was certainly the NHS at its most magnificent, but at its best? I do not think so. Most people, I am glad to say, do not need to see the NHS as I did, but every one of us sees it constantly in our lives, and most of the time we see it at its best.
For example, we have experienced the GP who listened to us when we needed it; we may be one of the 85 per cent of people who receive free prescriptions; we may have an older relative who has received tender and loving care, as well as a hip replacement, which transformed their lives; we may be one of the 30,000 people who get a free eye test every week, and so on, and on. This is what the NHS means to most of us. My anecdotal evidence—in spite of what the media tell us and in spite of the odd bad experience which all of us could quote—shows that most people have good experiences of the health service. If they did not, would the institution be held so dear in the hearts of the majority of the population?
Most people now do not remember what life was like without the NHS but I shall never forget the story my grandmother told me which first made me realise its value. A young widow, just after the First World War, she had two small children ill with whooping cough, a killer disease in those days. She called the doctor, who came to the door and asked her before entering if she had his fee. She replied that she did not. The doctor turned and walked away. That was the situation which in 1948 the Labour Government vowed to remedy. We should all be proud of the huge progress which has been made which allows us, in some ways, to take for granted that the NHS is always there for us.
1150
But at the beginning of the 21st century it is not enough to have a health service which provides life-saving procedures at moments of great crisis and a GP on hand when our children are sick. We must have an NHS which is fit for purpose for our life now and in the foreseeable future.
It must address the needs of an ageing population where illnesses are increasingly complex; where treatments which were once pioneering have become common place; where new drugs are constantly being developed; where access to technology has transformed all our lives; and, perhaps most of all, where patients are no longer content to be passive recipients of whatever the NHS is prepared to provide but are increasingly well informed and demanding.
The Government's 10-year plan, drawn up with patient and public involvement and endorsed by a very wide-ranging group of healthcare professionals and patient and care representatives, is a plan for delivering a health service for the 21st century. It sets out important principles—for example, that the NHS must be a universal service for all based on clinical need, not ability to pay; that it must be a comprehensive service which covers not only treatment for illness but self-care, health promotion and prevention; and that it must tackle inequalities in society. Most importantly, in my view, it also endorses the principle that the NHS must shape its services around the individual needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and their carers.
Following on from this 10-year plan, the recent Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided unprecedented amounts of funding to deliver these important commitments. While we must acknowledge that decades of underfunding cannot be easily rectified, it is clear that measurable improvements will result from the huge amount of extra investment to which the Government are committed—investment which will provide 35,000 extra nurses, 15,000 extra doctors, 100 new hospitals by 2010, 500 new primary care health centres, and 7,000 extra beds in hospitals and IT.
The fact that this massive investment and the means of raising the money to pay for it have found such widespread public approval—with some 74 per cent of the population expressing approval for the decision to raise national insurance contributions to fund more spending on the NHS— shows that the basic health of the health service is seen to be good and widely supported.
I imagine that many of your Lordships were as amused as I was at the sight and sound of TV and radio reporters trying rather desperately on the days following the Budget to find people to interview who disapproved of the proposals, and for the most part failing miserably. Certain sections of I he media have, as we know, for some time now tried to promote the view that the NHS is beyond repair, that its disintegration is inevitable. This is clearly not a view endorsed by the majority of the population.
What was universally endorsed, however, by government, by NHS staff, by patients and everyone else, was that investment alone is not enough, no

1151
matter how large that investment. Money has to be accompanied by modernisation, and it is this vision of the new NHS which is set out in the document, The NHS Plan, and in the subsequent document, published on the day after the Budget,Delivering the NHS Plan.
Time is too short to cover here all the plans for modernisation, but by far the most important one, in my view, is the intention to move the bulk of the funding—75 per cent eventually—to the primary care level. I welcome this for two reasons. First, it will recognise that primary care, in your own community, in your own home, is where most healthcare happens. Almost 1 million people visit their general practitioner or the surgery every day. For most people it is their first contact with the NHS, for many their only contact, and yet we habitually talk of, and too often think of, the NHS in terms of hospitals and secondary care.
My second reason for welcoming this new emphasis on primary care is that it will enable the rhetoric of patient involvement to become reality. Patients forums and patient advocacy and liaison services are welcome innovations, but we must remember also that patients will be decision makers as non-executive directors of primary care trusts. They will also have the choice about accessing services through NHS Direct, e-mailing or phoning the practice nurse or the GP for advice, and they will be able to book appointments on line. Round-the-clock medical care will be available for minor ailments and accidents near your own home, while electronic patients' records will enable therapists and doctors to maintain continuity of care and knowledge of their patients. As someone whose medical records now stand more than a foot high in four manila folders, your Lordships can imagine that I am particularly pleased with that.
These changes in primary care will ease the pressure on hospitals so that they can concentrate on providing specialist care. In addition—what a relief this will be to patients—appointments at hospitals will be pre-booked to suit patients and tests and diagnosis will usually be carried out on the same day.
Plans which I welcome especially are those which encourage greater co-operation between health and social services to ensure smoother discharge from hospital and greater home support for those who need it. Rigid institutional boundaries between health and social services, between business and community organisations, have done no favours for patients over the years. They have particularly inhibited the ability to work productively on prevention and to tackle health inequalities.
The virtues of promoting such partnerships and the positive effect they can have on the health of a community has been very much brought home to me in my work as chair of the New Opportunities Fund, the largest of the lottery distributors. By this summer we will have allocated money for 400 healthy living centres, targeted at the most disadvantaged areas in the United Kingdom. Partnerships between the local authorities, the NHS, the private and voluntary sectors and with the communities themselves is
1152
enabling a sea change in the health of those communities, encouraging people to take responsibility for their own health, to take more exercise, to grow their own food and to deal with stress and local community problems in a way which will have a profound effect in the future on the way they use the health service.
People who are less than fully committed to the continuation of the NHS are fond of saying that however much money you put into the service itself it can never deliver adequately as the needs are too great ever to be satisfied. There may be a grain of truth in that if we continue to think of it only as a sickness service. But I know that the Government are committed to ensuring that public health features very highly on the NHS agenda, and especially to tackling the inequalities in health which continue to mar our record. Only when lifestyle, housing, education and, above all, poverty are seen as factors affecting health, and when cross-cutting approaches are adopted by all interested agencies, will we be able to bring the needs and the provision to meet the needs into balance. This is the approach the Government are adopting. Their courageous commitment to measurable improvements in both the treatment of illness and the fostering of good health will surely bring results.
But commitment to modernisation in these and many other areas is, in turn, not enough. The NHS is to be provided with much clearer incentives to encourage better performance. There are of course existing incentives to improve performance, but until now they have focused too much on efficiency and getting more for the same amount of money. Ask any doctor or nurse how they feel about those and they will mostly tell you that what is needed are incentives which encourage quality services and responsiveness to patients. This is the success that the NHS Plan says must be rewarded, not the throughput.
However, the public must be assured that the extra resources to be put in provide value for money. That is why new forms of inspection are to be introduced. The introduction of a commission for health care audit and improvement and the merger of the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Care Standards Commission have been widely welcomed as a means of driving up standards and strengthening accountability to the public, although some of us might have wished that the timing of these reforms had been a little more tactfully handled.
I hope that other noble Lords will be able to speak in more detail about some of the reforms to which I have been able to refer only briefly, and about those which I have not had time to mention.
In conclusion, we stand on the threshold of what may prove to be the most exciting of times in the long and proud history of the NHS. We should never forget that the major changes that we are making require even more than money and even more than modernisation. They require a huge cultural change in the attitudes of those who serve the health service and those who use it. Empowerment of patients is easy to pay lip service to, but is perhaps harder to make a way

1153
of life both for staff and for patients themselves since it requires a reassessment of fundamental relationships which were in existence even before the National Health Service began.
Few people are as aware as Members of this House that changes in culture are more difficult to bring about than changes in organisation or structure. I am, however, convinced that the will and determination exist to make these changes. At the beginning of my remarks I referred to the NHS at its best. Aneurin Bevan said that the aim of the NHS should be to universalise the best. I believe that that is what the NHS Plan will do. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am pleased to be only the second speaker in the debate, because I intend to speak about dentistry—and rarely does it ever receive high-level rating in debates. I have looked through the 144-page NHS Plan: a Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform and can find nothing in it about the future of dentistry. It certainly contains nothing to give general dental practitioners any hope of an ongoing future in the National Health Service.
In opening the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, applauded the fact that 75 per cent of funding has moved to primary care. General dental services are a basic part of primary healthcare, but the funding is definitely not going towards such services—and the funding that is going to them is badly used. In an attempt to support the Prime Minister's pledge that by autumn 2001 everyone in this country would have access to national health dentistry, the Government developed catch-all access centres. The centres cost over £1 million each to set up and they cost a great deal more money to run. They are prohibitively expensive, they are not working as intended, and some centres are advertising to attract patients—I refer in particular to the centre in Penge. So it is not the case that NHS patients are looking to the access centres as the answer in terms of dental treatment. At present, most people will tell you that they simply cannot get NHS dental treatment. At lunch today, I sat next to a Member of Parliament from the North East of England, where I spent time last year. I remarked how much better dental services were in that part of England. He said: yes, they were, but even in the North East the situation was giving great cause for concern because NHS dentistry there was gradually vanishing.
One of the problems relates to quality, which is the subject of this debate. Dentists have no problem 'with wishing to deliver the best quality of service and one standard of treatment for all patients, but they cannot afford to do so. NHS fees are so bad that practitioners cannot cover all the new restrictions and demands placed on them.
My experience in NHS dentistry goes back 35 years. I can even remember the days when we did not have sealed injections for patients; we dropped a pellet into a bottle of sterile water and that was considered safe to inject into patients. Nowadays, people would have a fit if that kind of thing happened. Now, there are water
1154
regulations, amalgam separation, sterilisation to prevent cross-infection, all to standards that were never in place in the past. Indeed, there was even a suggestion that each instrument would have to be identified with the name of every patient on which it was used so that it could be identified subsequently. I gather that the whole dental profession has risen up in protest against the idea and it is not going ahead.
Dentists do not in any way oppose regulations to improve standards, but such regulations must be taken into account in terms of funding. Unless the funding is available, how can people suddenly be asked to carry out all these additional practices—which are presumably to be paid for out of their own pocket? That is where the ethical dilemma arises for practitioners. They want to do their best for everyone, they want to provide first-class National Health Service treatment for patients, and yet it is totally unviable and they are unable to do so.
The point that emerged from the NHS review group, NHS Dentistry: Options for Change, was that there must be extra funding. None of the proposals salaried system, capitation, sessional fees—are viable unless it is known how and when they are to be funded. The Government must state whether they intend to retain an NHS dental service. They must decide whether it is to be a universal service, free to all at the time the service is delivered—at present there is no free dental service, except for a few priority classes—or whether it will be a service provided only for exempt patients.
I have spoken to representatives of the General Dental Practitioners Association, the body most representative of grass-roots dental practitioners. Its information is that there will be not a penny more for dentistry and that the Government are looking at a core service only. If that is true, the Government should come clean and say so. Why are we trying to fool people that everyone will receive top-line National Health Service treatment in every part of the NHS if that is not the case? That is just trying to deceive people.
Every year dentists are asked to comply with more and more new regulations. A great deal of new registration will be required. Later this year, the registration of technicians and dental nurses will be a requirement, and dental nurses will have to undergo further training. All of this may be very good, and very helpful for patients; but it will be very helpful for patients only if they can actually get to see a dentist who has those facilities and receive the treatment that they deserve.
Whatever field of the National Health Service we are in, we must protect people against every conceivable risk, and the Government have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to do that. But we can protect only against risks that are reasonably foreseeable. New problems can arise all the time. If we think back a few years, none of us envisaged the hazards of HIV/AIDS or hepatitis. I am thinking of the days when needles could be re-used, and when one of the biggest dangers was broken needles. No one ever

1155
has a broken needle now; needles cannot be re-used, because they cannot be sterilised against hepatitis. One risk has been removed, but it has been replaced by a new risk.
The General Dental Practitioners Association believes that all dentists should be able to provide one standard of care to all patients—the highest standard. But it believes that certain criteria are important: first, the standards must be set; then they must be delivered; they must be monitored; and they must be paid for.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are prepared to make a commitment to make adequate National Health Service dental treatment available to all patients in this country? Or do they intend to make NHS dentistry simply a core service? If the intention is to provide a service to all patients, will the Minister assure the House that the funding that is required to provide that service to the proper standard and quality will be made available? I emphasise that this debate is about quality. It is very wrong—and it is a terrible ethical choice for a dentist to have to make—that he can offer the service, but not up to the proper standard. It is unfair to ask that of any practitioner. I ask the Minister to think seriously about this matter. I hope that he will be able to give us an assurance that National Health Service dentistry will continue to be universally available to people in this country, at a fee or not, but at least adequately funded to enable the service to continue.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for initiating the debate. I recognise her personal experiences that have led her to raise this subject. However, I am rather baffled by the title of the debate, especially as the NHS Plan was published in 2000. This debate is about the future. It has a slight flavour of a petition to the First Secretary of the Supreme Soviet congratulating him on his far-sighted plans for tractor production in the next 10 years or the superb expected growth in the grain harvest.
One of the reasons for bafflement is that the plans set out by the Secretary of State never seem to stick. He is perpetually chopping and changing targets and methods of implementation. We have moved from traffic light systems to stars and from earned autonomy to foundation hospitals in quick succession. Now we are expecting a new NHS Bill before the ink is dry on the current one.
Despite that, on these Benches we shall treat the debate as an opportunity to mark the Government's scorecard on their progress so far on the NHS Plan and to make a few humble suggestions about where it should go in the future. We have the great benefit of having not only the recently published chief executive's report commenting on NHS performance under the NHS Plan and targets, but also the King's Fund's Five-year Health Check, the January report of the Modernisation Agency and the Department of
1156
Health's report, published at the end of last year. They all deal with different issues relating to the NHS Plan in different ways.
From the outset it must be acknowledged that the Government are making a massive commitment to the NHS, unlike the Conservatives, who are not prepared to publish their alternative proposals but seem content to sit about like a vulture, waiting for the NHS to weaken. I regret that it does not appear that we shall hear any concrete proposals in the short term from the Conservative Party.
I hope that this debate will not be purely about targets and whether they have been met, although they deserve a mention. There are far too many targets in the original NHS Plan. There are also targets in the Department of Health public service agreement following the Comprehensive Spending Review for 1999-2002.
However, one set of targets, on recruitment and retention, is paramount. As Derek Wanless acknowledged in his report, capacity in the NHS is the key issue. There is a need for an extra 15,000 consultants, with 7,500 needed by 2004. We also need 35,000 nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 20,000 of them needed by 2004. Facilities are also key. We need 7,000 new acute and intermediate beds by 2004. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, also mentioned the important target of 100 new hospitals by 2010. Those are all noble targets.
I suspect that the chief executive's report on progress, published last month, is intended by and large as a good news document. It touches lightly on recruitment and retention issues and does not highlight the failure to meet the target for the number of outpatients waiting more than 26 weeks or the delays in meeting ambulance response time targets by 2001. It also fails mention the fact that only 47 per cent of people in England were registered with an NHS dentist in 2001. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in that respect. It does not even highlight the fact that outpatient numbers have risen sharply.
Where are we on the 35 public service agreement targets following the 1999 Comprehensive Spending Review? By my calculations, only eight have been achieved. Another five appear to be on course, but many of the remainder have been fudged or failed and many have been changed in mid stream.
Some might think that that casts doubt on the value of targets. The Government risk being hoist by their own petard on targets. In a recent study, Professor Nicholas Bosanquet says that he believes that the six months waiting time target will not be met by 2005.
Despite the myriad targets, we need to remind ourselves of the really important targets—not only the capacity targets, but the outcome targets, on which we need to reach European standards. Ambitious targets have been set for cancer, circulatory diseases and mental illness, but it is far too early to tell whether they will be met, as they should be.

1157
However, it is clear that the Government badly need to learn from their stewardship of the NHS so far in the broader sense of whether they are managing the process of reform correctly. The best study so far is the King's Fund's Five-year Health Check published last month. It gives the Government positive marks for the increase in funding, for not having flirted with alternative funding mechanisms and for having started a pattern of closer integration of health and social care. It cites the good start made by CHI and describes the national service frameworks and NHS Direct as positive developments.
In other areas, the report is not so positive. It agrees with critics that policies on waiting lists for NHS treatment threaten to distort clinical priorities. It points out that, despite NICE, there are many unresolved rationing dilemmas in acute care. In primary care, too much is being attempted too quickly. In workforce planning, the report is positive about some of the new processes adopted by the Government, but it is not clear that the NHS can hold on to its current staff.
I could go through a catalogue of individual comments from the report. It also makes some important overall observations. It cites tension between central and local management and the unwillingness of the centre to let go, despite the stated aim of decentralisation. It cites the secondary billing given to tackling health inequalities and social care. The latter has been left with junior Ministers to date and has been woefully underfunded, as the Help the Aged report published today makes clear. A holistic approach between health and social care and in tackling health inequalities, combined with the NHS, is clearly needed.
The report also cites the tension between radical and conservative philosophies, particularly in pursuing a preventative health agenda as opposed to one that concentrates purely on the NHS. In that context it criticises the Government for locking themselves into PFI, which commits them to traditional patterns of acute care for 30 years or more. The report reaches the damning conclusion that there has been no substantial risk transfer from public to private sector.
As we have done on these Benches, the King's Fund also criticises the Government's hyperactive approach to quality assurance and improvement in the NHS, risking confusion and delaying real changes to service provision. It says that the NHS is being overwhelmed by a torrent of well meaning initiatives and managers, and clinicians are buckling under the weight. Above all, it says that Labour has not yet developed a coherent and principled set of criteria to guide its decisions. Its rhetoric is often radical, but its actions are essentially conservative.
That is quite a charge sheet. We recognise that the NHS is a massive organisation with 1.2 million employees, but along their five-year pilgrimage this Government have made a major contribution to its problems. Waiting list targets have badly skewed clinical priorities, as have central initiatives.
1158
I could go on with a number of particular aspects, but in conclusion I hope that the Government will listen and learn from reports such as hat of the King's Fund. I hope that the recent Gallup poll—which shows that only 13 per cent of the public think the NHS is getting better and 40 per cent believe it is getting worse—represents only a passing trend and not a continuing public attitude.
We must all acknowledge that this will he a long haul. The Government have a mountain to climb. The paradox is that patients' expectations are very high. We cannot expect results overnight, but we can expect the Government to act on evidence, to empower those who work in the health service, to make fewer promises and to set fewer targets. As a senior member of the NHS Confederation said this morning, the NHS needs a period of getting to grips with some of the changes that have been thrust upon it. I thought that he put it rather well when he said that the motto should now be, "Don't just do something; stand there".
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for giving us the opportunity to have this important debate. I want to share with your Lordships some concerns I have about the nature of our public discourse on health.
I want to take your Lordships first of all to the north of Mozambique, which I visited in 1998, to a small town which had been badly affected by the war. The hospital there was in a fairly derelict state, with no fresh water or electricity, but it had a rather good antenatal clinic. The health priorities in the town were concerned with re-establishing the peace, clean water throughout the town, education for the children and, above all else, improving the capacity of families in the community to grow good and wholesome food.
In the public mind and in our public debate on health issues in this country I believe that we have so united the notion of health with the National Health Service that we have come to believe that the only solution to the health challenges of the 21st century lies in better funding and better management of the National Health Service. I served on the late John Smith's Social Justice Commission. Some fairly Left-wing researchers suggested to us, deliberately provocatively, that we would not improve the nation's health while we continued to pour endless funds clown the open throat of the National Health Service. That was a provocative remark, not that I thought that they believed that we should not properly fund and manage the service. However, they wanted to make us think about what we were trying to achieve in healthcare.
I am concerned about public understanding. My fear is that as our community continues to prosper demand for health services will increase and in five to 10 years' time we shall face a similar challenge of not enough resources to meet increasing demand; or, worse, we shall enter difficult economic times and will not be able to afford to sustain the level of service upon which people have come to depend. I say with my

1159
international development hat on that there is not a ghost of a chance of those kind of healthcare facilities being available to vast numbers of people in our world.
I have a question on which I should value some ministerial comment; that is, what are we doing about public expectations? There are two ways of tackling the challenge of health. One is to increase resources—I support, if I may say so, the proper resourcing of the health service and welcome what the Government have done—but the other is to get some control over demand. The unacceptable way of tackling the latter difficult problem is to provide high quality services for those who can afford them and not for the rest of the community.
Our aim should surely be to strengthen the capacity of people to assume greater responsibility for their own bodies, minds and spiritual growth. The provision made in the public forum is there to support individuals, families, households and communities to be successful in carrying out their own responsibilities. Whose life is it? Whose bodies, minds and spirits are we talking about? I refer to those of the people, not those of the service.
Nye Bevan created the National Health Service in the context and vision of values designed to increase, and spread the possibility of, a responsible society for all. The institution of the National Health Service was rooted in a long development of ideas and values about the common good and the way that would strengthen the capacity of ordinary people to accept greater responsibility for their own lives. Archbishop William Temple, R H Tawney and many others contributed to that debate in the 1930s and 1940s.
Two things follow from that: first, the blocks have to be removed that make it difficult for people to assume that role. Many years ago the Black report examined issues of poverty, inequality and aspects of social class and exclusion. As I stood in a queue in a store to buy groceries I noticed that the woman in front of me who had two small children filled her basket with the cheapest sliced bread and the cheapest tinned food. There was no fresh food in the basket. However, the basket of the person behind me was filled with enough alcohol to have lasted a number of years in my childhood home and with top quality foods. In that context I ask myself: what are the health issues in our community and the public attitudes towards it? Secondly, we have to try to create a different culture and to encourage the assumption of values which promote personal responsibility in society. The policies, language and discourse we pursue must promote that debate.
The House will be aware that at least 30 million people in the continent of Africa are HIV positive. In Uganda the infection rate has been reduced from 30 per cent to under 9 per cent. That has been achieved by a concerted programme of action undertaken by government, voluntary agencies, community leaders, Churches, families and schools working together in a common cause. As people are learning in South Africa, which has been a little slow off the mark in these matters, part of that strategy involves ensuring
1160
that the right healthcare facilities exist to back up that process. Part of the strategy requires dedicated professional health services but much of it, however, requires education and the changing of attitudes and lifestyles aimed at helping people take control of their own bodies, their own lifestyles and their own choices.
I submit that until we in this more prosperous and materialistic society face those questions ourselves, we may find ourselves pouring ever increasing resources into bodies such as the NHS in a self-defeating strategy and asking of the National Health Service a role it was never designed to undertake and cannot possibly fulfil.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on introducing this important debate and on doing so in such fine form. We ought to be grateful for the NHS.
When the NHS Plan was first published two years ago it was seen as a very ambitious programme. The vision it set out was widely supported by the public and the professions. However, it was not until the Chancellor committed the Government to repairing the enormous funding deficit in the NHS that we were given this marvellous opportunity to change the health service in the UK in what I believe is a fundamental way. So we have the vision and we have the potential funding to make it happen; all that is left is for us to decide on the tactics.
I have never believed the "bottomless pit" argument, which seems to have been one of the excuses given by previous governments for not putting money into the health service. There are at least two reasons why I believe that. First, one has only to look at countries around the world where patients are satisfied because they are seen by a doctor or other health professional at a time and a place which suit them and receive the treatment they need, in hospital or outside, in a timely way to realise that it is entirely possible to fund all reasonable needs. In Australia, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Canada and Germany patients do not seem to have a major problem with services. The doctors and governments of those countries may complain from time to time, but by and large the patients do not. Secondly, although I am no economist, it seems to me that the more affluent we become and the bigger our GDP, the bigger the proportion of our GDP we can afford to spend on healthcare. I believe that not only can we afford to pay for better services, we just have to do so.
Having got that off my chest, I should like to focus on some of the mechanisms through which the Government might be able to achieve their vision. There is some hope that the new administrative framework with PCTs, strategic health authorities, the proposed health protection agency, coupled with the quality and inspectorate agenda of CHI, NICE and so on will be helpful but, of course, only time will tell. In any case, if history is anything to go by, further reforms will occur in due course. But there are more fundamental things that can be done that patients themselves will recognise more immediately.

1161
While we wait for the increases in the numbers of doctors and nurses and hospital beds that are promised but which cannot, with the best will in the world, appear overnight, there are many steps that can be taken that could have a more immediate effect.
First, as we increase the numbers of medical students entering medicine, which we are doing, we should also do more to retain doctors who are leaving. The average age of doctors leaving the NHS in the hospital service is between 55 and 60, depending on the specialty, at a time when they could still contribute much to the NHS. They leave for a number of reasons, among which is an increasing difficulty in coping with the considerable pressures that are placed on them, and which increase rather than decrease as they get older. There are also more services for patients, more teaching and more administrative tasks. The part of their work that they seemed to enjoy most and for which most would give their eye teeth to do is simply looking after their patients.
The Department of Health has gone some way to try to encourage trusts to offer more flexible contracts to doctors at the end of their careers so that they can continue to contribute their clinical skills and knowledge in the last five or 10 years of their careers. They could perhaps do so part time and in different ways. On the ground, it is difficult to see that much progress has been made on that front. What a waste of talent and expertise at a time when we are desperately short of doctors. I hope that the Minister will consider whether more could be done in that regard.
There is yet another need for flexibility in the employment of doctors; that is, not only because 50 or 60 per cent of our newly graduating doctors are women but also because the male graduates, too, are looking for more flexible lifestyles. We have some way to go despite much effort by the Government to persuade trusts to do more to produce flexible contracts for staff. That applies particularly to women but also to men, and not only to doctors but also to nurses and other healthcare professionals. Will the Minister consider whether that initiative could be made to work a little more effectively?
There is another hurdle that again needs to be looked at critically; that is, the so-called "workforce planning" system, by which the numbers of training posts for medical specialties are strictly controlled centrally. We are desperately short of consultants but we have strict limitations on the number of doctors who are allowed into training posts. We now have the odd situation in which there are increasing numbers of young doctors coming out of medical schools at one end, a clear need for more trained consultants at the other and a tight, restricting hand on the number of training posts in the middle, preventing many who want to train from doing so. Of course this whole process of manpower planning has to be managed—I can see that—but it is time to re-examine the whole process, which is becoming somewhat ridiculous.
There are many other actions that could be taken with the extra resources that are coming on stream and which would have an immediate effect. Investment
1162
now in medical secretaries, ward clerks and porters—the basic infrastructure of hospitals—would allow for much greater efficiency in the use or nurses, physios, doctors and others.
In the last minute of my speech, I want to put in a plea for help for poorly performing hospitals. We have heard much about the need to reward hospitals that perform well by giving them greater freedoms and funding—we do so quite rightly in my opinion. However, I am concerned about the "name, blame and shame" culture in which poorly performing hospitals become embroiled. That is somewhat inappropriate. It is like blaming the patient for being sick. Those hospitals need understanding and support—understanding through an analysis of the reasons why they are underperforming and support to help them to improve. Only the patients suffer if we do not do that.
I suggest that we need an analogue of CHI that concentrates on helping hospitals to remedy their difficulties. I propose that the Government should set up an organisation that could perhaps be called CRI— the commission for rescue and improvement—for ailing hospitals.
We have an excellent plan for the NHS and we are now being given the resources to achieve it. We must ensure that we look critically at how we can best use those resources to achieve the plan in the immediate term as well as in the more distant future.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I regard this issue as probably the most significant political, economic and social issue that I have encountered in almost 40 years in your Lordships' House. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us a chance to discuss it.
These days, the honourable gentlemen in the other place are somewhat neutered—an operation that is freely available on the National Health Service. In general, we are not given the time to discuss in Parliament issues of great import. We have thrust on us ideas from government and sometimes, when a major Bill comes up, we are told, "Please do not speak on this; we do not have enough time". We have enough time today to discuss an issue that means much to me. However, I am not qualified to speak at first hand. Unlike the noble Baroness, I have suffered in that I have no experience of the NHS. I had my tonsils out many years ago and I have spent probably a few hours in bed in my life but I have never been in a hospital bed.
I was brought up in a strange world. My brother-in-law was the militant Irish leader of the young doctors, a cancer specialist who regularly appeared on television 30 years ago saying that they were underpaid, overworked, overstretched and—he was Irish—over here. My uncle was a consultant for many years at St Mary's. Having had polio, he could not fight in the war and always felt slightly ashamed of that. Another relation was a GP in the country where he doubled as a vet where necessary. He set up the pain clinic in King Edward VII Hospital.
I spend most of my time abroad. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, I believe that man has a duty to be healthy if he possibly can be.

1163
To provide the noble Baroness with great encouragement, I echo what she said and advise her that your Lordships' House, as I have said previously, has the longest life expectancy of any body of its kind in the world.
I pay tribute to the NHS as a result of an incident that happened only two weeks ago. A member of my wife's family who had been ill for many years fell downstairs in the middle of the night. He had been treated previously in Bart's and Westminster and Chelsea. A panic phone call to me got the ambulance out. It was there in four and a half minutes, and I made it in eight, not being very far away. The ambulance crew could not have been more helpful and competent. The accident and emergency department was not particularly crowded that night, but the stress and strain on the young doctors who had been working for 12 hours or more was evident. Sadly, the person died but everybody in that hospital was so competent and kind. A blind eye was turned when we came in with his favourite tipple and managed to dribble it with a sponge into the corner of his mouth. After death, the help that was provided to the bereaved was outstanding.
I compare that experience with the previous hospital where I had visited the same patient—Bares, the "St James Robertson Justice and Hattie Jacques" of the ancient world. The building is now virtually condemned and very depressing, although great skills exist there.
I raise the problem of bringing together the inherent skills and ambitions with the resources that are needed. I have spent much of my time working abroad developing hospitals and financing medical equipment. I know about the situation from the overseas side. When I look back, I see that we have one of the worst health services in the world for a nation with our history—back to Scutari and Florence Nightingale. The reasons are strange. I found a report from 1948 that said that we must make a change. I believe that that was the time when my great uncle, Stafford Cripps, was Chancellor.
We have needed change all along. The question is: do we look for revolution, which is regular change, or a revolt? A revolt is always dangerous because it causes problems. We can consider the matter with what we used to call a resource triangle. Three things are required: human resources, physical resources and buildings, and the money and the ability to complete them.
I cannot discuss human resources and I shall not explain how difficult it is when a soon-to-be member of my family—a very bright young man who has just qualified as a surgeon—says that he cannot see a career for himself in the NHS, which is sad. It is sad, too, that we have to recruit so many from overseas to fill posts. Let us assume that this great revolution of people and changes—worth the multi-billion-pound mergers of large corporations—will produce a structure that is reasonable and understandable. I worry about the size of the change that is proposed and the human stresses and strains that that may cause.
1164
I now turn to the physical side. I declare an interest as a director of one of the contracting groups— Gleeson. At present we are building six hospitals under the PFI with a total of 600 beds at a cost of £150 million. One is just over the river. I do not speak on behalf of the group but I want to mention a few problems and difficulties based on past experience.
It seems to me that in the plan the Government have simply produced a wish list. In the financial world we would say, "Take it back and come back again when you have a prospectus or a business plan". It is not a business plan, but it is full of everything that one could possibly wish to see. Therefore, naturally I and others have a duty to support the proposals.
My concern lies with the realisation of the proposals. Often in the international world one starts with conceptualisation—a wonderful word—and ends up with realisation. But between the two is the lovely word "animation", which is Walt Disney orientated. How do we bring this concept alive? How do we build 100 hospitals by the year 2010? How do we re-equip 3,000 GPs' premises and find the GPs to use the equipment, the technology and the services? How do we build 500 one-stop care units?
Today the situation is not bad. Nine new hospitals were built or commissioned last year and another nine will be built or commissioned this year. But to date none of the hospitals commissioned under the PFI has been able to cope with the problem of transfer of resources or people. I believe that it is called "transfer of employment". We have a problem with Unison. It is difficult for people who have worked for the state and the National Health Service to transfer to a new body—a new organisation with a new name. It is difficult to achieve that.
We have a further problem. At the beginning, PFI in whichever sector, whether it was water, transport or health, caused problems because it was new. We were surrounded—not surrounded, outnumbered—at meetings by the lawyers who represented the banks and others, all charging large amounts of money to advise people how not to do something. I believe that, to some extent, the problem has been solved thanks to the competence of the Government's PFU, the Private Finance Unit, whose chief executive has done an extremely good job. Standard contracts are now being advanced. But it has taken time, and it will take time, to achieve objectives. I would not say that it is not possible to achieve them, but I believe that it is highly doubtful.
That is where my concern arises. It is wrong to raise expectations too greatly and not to be able to deliver. There is nothing wrong with the plan. It may be the timescales that are difficult. Often there have to be six bidders for a hospital project, but not too many of those outside in the construction world are competent to handle large-scale activities. We are short of labour and we are very short of resources. The risk placed upon a contractor when his margin may be only 1 per cent is very high. There are risk-takers out there, but it is a difficult time. The objectives are good, but I doubt

1165
very much whether more than 50 per cent of them can at present be achieved. That is a personal, not a corporate, view.
I turn to another matter of concern. When one moves from the public to the private sector, a change of culture is necessary. Very seldom has a civil servant managed to move on to a successful career in the commercial world, and vice versa. Therefore, as we set up these new structures, who will be the people in charge? Who is the client, and who is the boss or gaffer? And what risks are they taking?
I want to raise a warning with the Minister in relation to the new proposals. These days, every accountant, lawyer and professional person has professional indemnity insurance. Are the Government guaranteeing and providing cover for those who may have jobs as the non-executive directors? I know not. However, I wish the whole project well. I believe that the wish list is extremely exciting, but there is a long, long way to go.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for initiating this debate. The noble Baroness knows from personal experience the importance of expert medical care and the need for clean hospitals in order to prevent infections such as MRSA. Yesterday my voice disappeared, so I hope that I shall be able to say a few words in the debate today.
The 10-year plan has some important points. But one never knows what may happen during that period, and priorities may have to change. Paragraph 1.16 on page 19 of the plan states:
"Where patients have the most complex illnesses and conditions, such as the need for a heart operation, they will be referred to centres with the best equipment and the staff with the most appropriate expertise—even if that means travelling to a specialist centre".
Yesterday I received a postcard from Harefield Hospital. It said:
"Please help us to save this world-famous hospital from destruction. Neither its staff nor patients will relocate to the expensive and polluted area of Paddington in London".
The reputations of hospitals which are renowned world-wide cannot be built up overnight. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what the plans are for Harefield Hospital. The NHS Plan that we are discussing today stresses that the wishes of patients and staff are important. Shutting hospitals is not something that the public or NHS staff want to see. Perhaps today the Minister will say something in general about shutting hospitals.
The plan says that all patients will have a TV and telephone by their beds. That is the icing on the cake. However, where a complicated condition is involved, the vital priority should be that the patient receives the correct treatment and goes to the appropriate hospital. I declare an interest as I have been treated in a spinal injuries unit. I give as an example spinal injury resulting in paralysis. Many severe problems can arise for newly spinal-cord injured patients treated in
1166
general hospitals. They are at risk from life-threatening medical complications which general hospitals lack the facilities, expertise or specialist teams to recognise and treat—for example, autonomic dysreflexia, which is unique to the spinal-cord injured.
Admission to general hospitals can spell disaster, while appropriate spinal injury treatment and ongoing care can offer a good quality of life to a paralysed person. It is very worrying that several of the spinal units have beds closed due to staff shortages.
I applaud the appointing of modern matrons, as stated in the plan. The spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville is looking for such a person—thus far without success. I hope that the hospital will find someone who is dynamic, has strong leadership and can attract staff, and who will ensure that the unit is clean, that infections are under control and that patients enjoy their food instead of having to send out for take-aways.
The Spinal Injuries Association, of which I am president, feels that there should be a bed bureau covering all the spinal units in England and Wales so that it is known throughout the country when beds are vacant. In that way, patients will receive the correct treatment without delay. In this day and age of modern technology, that surely should be possible.
At Oswestry, the spinal unit has set up some halfway houses, with care provided, so that paralysed patients waiting for their homes to be adapted or for new ones to be made available do not block the acute beds in the hospital. That is an excellent example or the NHS, social services and the voluntary sector working together.
The title on page 50 of the plan is "Investing in NHS Staff". One sub-title refers to improving the working lives of staff. Last Saturday I heard of a nurse who had come from abroad and was working and resident in a hospital in Wakefield. Her car was vandalised within the hospital grounds and, in addition, hospital windows were smashed. Many people no Ionizer seem to respect hospitals and the people inside them as they did in the past. If staff and patients are to feel safe, security will have to be stepped up.
Investing in NHS staff must be one of the biggest challenges. Yesterday I chaired a meeting of the Associate Parliamentary Group on Skin on the manpower crisis in dermatology. There are some serious black spots where posts are vacant. Registrars becoming consultants replace those retiring. More women doctors are working part time. There is not a flood of doctors coming from abroad and it takes four extra years to train a dermatologist. Children in agony with serious eczema are waiting months for treatment. The same story is heard about rheumatologists and the lack of rehabilitation facilities for long-term disabilities.
Specialist nurses in diabetes, Parkinson's disease, dermatological and other conditions are a great help, but one needs the whole team for a successful outcome. The Government should be given credit for trying but

1167
I hope that they will listen to the patients and the staff nearest to them who really understand the problems, which I hope will be overcome.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for initiating this debate today. I thank her also for the first part of her speech in which she mentioned her illness, which I found moving. Many of us were praying for you, Jill, this time last year.
I always find it easier to criticise than to praise but today I want to praise the National Health Service. Like my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, I believe that the NHS is one of Britain's greatest achievements. The Government are on record as believing that the NHS should be free at the point of need, that it is the best insurance policy in the world and that a taxpayer-funded NHS is best for all concerned.
When the King's Fund reported earlier this year, it opened its discussion paper by saying:
"The NHS has a history of underfunding and the consequences are that the UK suffers a lack of capacity—in terms of both staff and facilities—in comparison with its European neighbours".
It identified the need for greater freedom for providers to respond to patients and purchasers of care and for incentives to retain and attract staff, including financial incentives and rewards.
A further report, the Wanless report, stressed two particular needs: greater public engagement and local flexibility in delivery. It stated that that would provide a health service fit for the 21st century. I was very pleased indeed with the Government's proposals in their 10-year plan. They have shown that they mean what they said in that plan; that is, to continue the improvement in the health service. In the latest budget there was the largest ever sustained increase in NHS resources: an increase in real terms of 48 per cent by 2008.
The Government have pledged that resources will be matched by reforms. Key elements of those reforms are that there should be a national standard; that there should be modernised, flexible professional people working within hospitals; that the staff should be rewarded adequately; that the needs of patients should be at the forefront; that there should be improved health services, especially for the poorest; that there should be intermediate care to build bridges between hospitals and homes; and that there should be a radically different relationship between health and social services to develop one care system.
On a personal note, the latter two elements are particularly welcome to me, having faced difficulties over recent years. When my mother, who is now 89, became ill, I had to sell her home and ensure that she was settled in a care home in Market Rasen. I came across the hospital, the social services, and the health services, all of which were helpful. Everyone wanted to help but there was overlap in some areas and gaps in others. I believe that one care system for the future is essential.
1168
The Government are also committed to fundamental changes in job design and work organisation; to change in working practices, to decreasing arbitrary demarcations, and to front-line staff being given more authority. One example is that of ward sisters in charge of ward budgets. Who knows what is needed in terms of budgets better than the ward sister?
It is right and proper that staff in hospitals are praised for the work they do. So many of our lives depend upon them. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health are on record as paying tribute to all staff in the NHS; to those in different medical disciplines, and to those who are ancillaries, secretaries, receptionists, porters and cleaners. They all play their part and are among the best of our British public servants.
I am proud to say that during my trade union career I met many NHS staff and saw at first hand their expertise and devotion, both to their work and to those whom they administer. I often felt humbled as I listened to them speak with such enthusiasm about their work. It would be a tremendous waste of knowledge and expertise not to expand the opportunities for hospital staff. For many, their work is a cause rather than a job and we, the patients, are all the luckier for that.
NHS staff at all levels are vital to reform. The need to increase their numbers is acknowledged openly by the Government. Already, we have 2,000 modern matrons in place with the authority necessary for them to succeed. We hope that there is more to come. There is an aim to have 15,000 GPs and consultants and 30,000 more therapists and scientists under local control. I particularly welcome these developing opportunities. The professionals with whom I worked in MSF—I declare an interest; my former union, now known as Amicus, had many NHS members including clinical psychologists, radiographers, speech therapists, and so forth—emphasise the need for constant training and retraining.
The Government are committed to enhancing the role of therapists and nurses and to increasing the training of all staff, including the new health professionals. They are committed to more flexible working patterns and—vital for women in particular—to better child support. As 79 per cent of NHS staff are women, that is, indeed, an important support. Other noble Lords with far more experience than me in the health service have spoken of what is needed in relation to those commitments. I am sure that the Minister listened.
The monitoring of how the NHS is supporting and involving staff—including in personal development—to underpin progress in recruitment and retention is extremely important. It is a worthy aim, but it must be one which takes place with the involvement of those who work within the NHS. The Government also propose new contracts of employment, including for hospital consultants. Those are aimed at liberating and rewarding NHS staff.

1169
Whenever changes are made, even if the stated aims are good, some feelings of apprehension are felt by working people. We need to be totally open with the staff if new contracts are to work. Consultation is obviously the key. Consultation means discussions with staff and their representatives before decisions are taken, not after. It means listening to what the staff and their representatives say and using the workers' knowledge when alterations are being made. It means a flow of information up and down any chain of command so that all workers know what is happening and, above all, why it is happening. After all, the staff are in the best position to know about local needs, local differences and local responsibility. If the proposed investment and incentives are implemented with the betterment of the staff in mind, then the NHS will be better for workers. More importantly, it will also be better for patients, which must be our ultimate aim.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this enormously important subject. The speeches so far have been outstanding. I hope that the Minister will forgive me as I am a relative novice when speaking on health matters.
It was interesting, encouraging and moving to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, give the reason for her speech on the occasion of her debate. I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord McColl is on the Front Bench. Eleven months ago I had my first non-orthopaedic visit to a hospital. Alas, something happened to me, which is often mentioned here: a dreadful thing called a hernia. I am sure that my noble friend and your Lordships will be aware that this month is the season for professional footballers getting hernias. I do not know why, but they are all rushed into hospital with them. If noble Lords put their noble noses into the "boulevard "press they will see that every week and month players from every club run in for these types of operations. Indeed, it happened to me, so it seems that I am not entirely alone.
The report that we are discussing has been admirably covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and other noble Lords. One of the first excerpts that I noted was in the introduction. It stated:
"More money is, however, only the starting point".
The speeches that we have heard so far take that issue into account. No doubt we shall hear more about it. But there is a great deal more to the matter than that. My noble friend Lord Selsdon referred to the tripod—that is to say, money, facilities and, above all, the people who are involved. That aspect is beautifully covered in the report.
Page 10 of the report is classified as the "Executive summary". I hope that that is not aimed at the more novice-like and perhaps—I would not hesitate to say—idle Members of your Lordships who would glance through the "Executive summary". I am delighted to see that it mentions the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
1170
The report refers to what is a kind of dreadful postcode success regarding cancer. About 10 or 12 years ago I had a colleague and friend in Kirriemuir— my hometown—who suffers from multiple sclerosis. It was agonising explaining to him why a similar sufferer, with whom no doubt he was in contact, just across the water in the Kingdom of Fife, was able to receive treatment. The medicine was called beta-interferon, which apparently provides excellent relief for intermittent sufferers of multiple sclerosis. If he had lived or attended hospital in Fife he would have received it. He did not receive it in Angus and in Tayside. That was purely a clinical judgment, although I suspect that the cost-effectiveness of the drug had something to do with it. Happily, that matter now seems to have been resolved. That was in Scotland. However, at some stage I hope that the Minister can reassure me that similar cases are covered. He does not need to do that today. Perhaps he will write to me.
In chapter 2, paragraph 2.16 in the report, I was delighted to see the excellent comment that,
"the top 25% of hospitals get nearly double the output from their consultants as the bottom 25%".
For someone who has only been passive—luckily—in hospital, it struck a chill through my heart that somewhere, somehow there would be a hunch of supervisors in the operating theatre chasing up—if I can put it tactfully—the consultants, saying, "Get a move on with that. There are others behind. Look sharp with that scalpel. Come along. There are people waiting". I wonder what was being aimed at in that paragraph. I hope that the quotation was comparing like with like; for example, regions and types of disease. As your Lordships will know, some diseases are found to be more endemic in some areas than in others.
I looked at page 31 of the report. It did not seem to be classified as a chapter. It is headed, "An under-invested system". I noticed there the interesting but stern quotation that between the years 1979–1997,
"the average annual increase in Government spending on health was … 2.9%".
That dropped a penny with me. I wondered whether your Lordships might care to look at earlier periods—perhaps 1960 or 1964–1979 or since. It has been an ongoing thought today that however much one spends on the National Health Service we need to look at how those funds are spent.
Chapter 3 is headed "Options for funding healthcare". I was fascinated to find in paragraph 3.14 that the United States and Switzerland have two systems of funding their health service. The wicked word "regressive" was used. I have two points to make about Switzerland. First, one will not find a more egalitarian country; and, secondly, I have considerable personal experience of it. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever in his place. We share considerable experience of Swiss medicine and healing. Indeed, he is a perfect example of how fit one can be.
In paragraph 3.25 there are two figures which equate more with my discipline as an accountant. In France 3 per cent of health expenditure was on generic

1171
medicines whereas in the United Kingdom the figure was 60 per cent. That is interesting, particularly in view of chapter 11 where the report refers to changes in relationships between the NHS and the private sector. There is a particularly helpful comment dealing with the pharmaceutical and the bio-pharmaceutical industries. Two figures are mentioned which are useful to accountants and to businessmen, such as my noble friend Lord Selsdon. There is a helpful quotation in chapter 11.11. The Minister agrees with me on this matter. It states that the,
"National Health Service has a major role to play in ensuring that the UK remains an attractive base for the industry".
I must conclude. In chapter 13 there are considerable and helpful references to what I would call "preventive medicine and good health". I look around the House and hope that noble Lords are examples of that. But there are references to smoking, diet and nutrition, but above all to drugs and to alcohol.
I am a little worried by the lack of emphasis in chapter 16 and the final summary on the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse. That is certainly a drain on resources. In view of what the right reverend Prelate pointed out, I hope that the effects of drugs and alcohol will not replace other ancient diseases–the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned whooping cough. No doubt we shall hear more about such matters from the Minister. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for initiating the debate.
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for allowing us to debate the NHS Plan today.
I shall concentrate my remarks on one aspect of child and adolescent mental health services. I begin by welcoming the addition of 335 mental health teams to provide an immediate response to young people undergoing mental health crises, which is announced in the plan. I welcome the announcement of a significant increase in the number of midwives and health visitors to be trained each year by 2004. They play an essential role in ensuring the good mental health of our infants and children.
In the same spirit I welcome the major expansion of Sure Start projects to cover one-third of children aged under four years living in poverty. Sure Start seems to have been one of the great successes of this Government as regards vulnerable families.
By reducing child poverty, the Government are also removing some of the stress on our most vulnerable families, particularly lone parent families, giving their children a much better prospect of growing up feeling well nurtured and ready to take on the world and enjoy it. In that context I hope that I can persuade the Minister that funding for child and adolescent mental health services should take the highest priority when decisions are taken about the use of the revenue from additional national insurance moneys.
1172
I am advised that mental health services for children have suffered from the Government's decision not to ring-fence last year's grant of £10 million to child and adolescent mental health services. I am very disturbed to learn from the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the shortage of appropriate in-patient beds for children and young people with mental health problems. This shortage is a chronic problem and is deeply unsettling. One would have expected more to have happened by now. However, I understand that the Government are now in the process of closing child and adolescent mental health service beds in the South East.
My chief concern, however, is the dearth of mental health professionals in the multi-disciplinary teams increasingly serving our children and young people. Can the Minister say whether this need for qualified mental health professionals to participate in these multi-disciplinary groups is recognised; whether an appropriate qualification is being formulated for them and when; and in what numbers these professionals will be delivered? I apologise for not giving the Minister warning of these detailed questions. Perhaps he would be good enough to write to me if that would be most convenient.
Last night I met a young woman in a hostel for the homeless. We recognised each other from an earlier visit that she had paid two years previously when she was 16. She was a gifted gospel singer due to record with a celebrated popular singer this coming weekend. She was attractive and seemed intelligent. Why then was she doing a second stint in the hostel? It may well have been that there was an aspect of her experience which a mental health professional might have been able to identify and address. Without adequate mental health input young people like her are unlikely to receive the more emotionally aware attention they need. The Connexions service, the youth offending teams and other schemes are seriously handicapped without a mental health input.
I recently met with head teachers from Newham, Peckham and other London boroughs. One of the conclusions of our meeting was that teachers and head teachers need to receive training in the management of challenging and vulnerable children. The Prince's Trust has produced a report involving interviews with children excluded from school. Very often children reported that their schooling broke down as a result of a poor relationship with a particular teacher. We really cannot expect our secondary school teachers to befriend and parent every child in their class. There is the danger of overburdening them with pastoral responsibilities. But we can equip them to be emotionally intelligent enough to deal tactfully and effectively with challenging children. Mental health professionals would be very well placed to provide this training and support.
I was very pleased to learn that Centrepoint has employed for this year a mental health professional to review all its services from the mental health perspective. Clearly, if we wish to deliver to our children and young people the help they need to keep them in school, out of prison and on the path to employment, independence and a healthy family life

1173
of their own, we must ensure that the Government's 10-year plan and its national service frameworks for children and mental health allows sufficient investment to procure the mental health professionals, the Connexions service, the youth offending teams, the care and education systems and all their needs.
A couple of weeks ago a hostel manager described to me the helpful advice that he had received from a trainer with a psychology degree. He said that last year he had seen a young man who had stabbed his wrist repeatedly with a fork until he had made a nasty wound. The other residents were very concerned. It was very hard to know how best to react to his action, which was in the context of the frustration of his desire to go beyond the rules of the hostel. He wished that he had known then that this action could be understood as a call for attention. That may seem obvious to your Lordships, but in the heat of the moment, when there is so much chaos in the environment, it is perhaps less easy to understand and react appropriately. The appropriate response, therefore, was to deal with the wound in a calm fashion and to maintain one's sang froid.
Of course, one's immediate reaction is to show a great deal of concern and interest in the young man. However, this response amounts to encouragement to the young person to repeat the self-harming activity whenever he feels distressed. It is better to be calm and make sure that he is very well aware that there are other means of his raising his concerns. One has to steer a careful path between neglect and hysteria. That was the advice, as I remember it, that the mental health professional gave. He wished that he had been more aware of it at the time and that he had had that advice before. We cannot allow staff, working with our most vulnerable young people in all settings, to work in the dark. Their work needs to be illuminated by proper psychological input.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is always good to be the last speaker because most of the things I wanted to say have been said. Therefore, I had to think of something new to say.
My experience as a patient has been very typical of the NHS. I had very good service when I tore ligaments in my knee late one evening before Christmas Eve about seven years ago. I got an ambulance to St Thomas's hospital. I had to wait a few hours on a trolley. But it is a very comfortable existence lying in bed in a room. There is nothing to complain about. I got very good treatment and there was no problem. We have excellent service from the accident and emergency services.
But recently I said to my GP that I had a hearing problem and that I should have my hearing tested. He said that that would be no problem and that he would write off for an appointment. I have one in nine months' time. That is appalling. I know that everyone has to wait and I know why. I know the consequences of 20 years of under-investment. We have many shortages and so forth. We love our NHS.
1174
But while it is excellent in dealing with acute emergency problems, as regards elective surgery and normal health concerns, the service is falling down. I believe that is because we started with very good intentions, which were that it should be free at the point of use and universal. Those are very good values and we should stick to them. But those values have prevented us from thinking innovatively about different ways of doing things. The 10-year plan is a very good opportunity; but all 10-year plans are a farce and a total waste of time because the detail changes. No 10-year plan should be the same 10 years on otherwise life would be very dull indeed. A 10-year plan states what is to be done for the next 18 months or so and then everything moves on. That is what 10-year plans are about.
But I believe that there are certain central principles to look for. I can claim only to have been a patient in the NHS. I have not been a member of a health trust, I am not a doctor; I have no relations who are doctors; nothing like that. As a patient, I am not at all sure that I feel that the NHS belongs to me. It belongs to nurses. I should add a word about nurses, because morale has never been lower—I have to say that, as it is part of the national debate. The NHS also belongs to consultants, who want more money and better contracts; it belongs to GPs; and it belongs to a range of administrators, who are all doing their best. However, it does not belong to the patients.
We must think of more creative ways of ensuring that the NHS belongs to patients. I do not mean patients' councils, or community health councils. They are bureaucratic structures to which people who are interested in making a career strive to be elected, and so on. I have never belonged to any such bodies; they are a ghastly waste of time. Let us just imagine what would happen if we set up a national bread service. People would not be able to buy a chapatti of choice: they would only be able to buy white bread, sliced or unsliced. That would be it. We buy our food from Tesco stores, and do not expect questions to be asked in Parliament if we get an addled egg.
I turn to the document The NHS Plan, and draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 10 of its preface, which begins with the words:
"The NHS will respect the confidentiality of individual patients".
Nevertheless, we had the Rose Addis case a while ago—something that is still considered one of the great disgraces of recent times. A patient's case was discussed in Parliament, with no one pointing out that it was not correct to do so.
Similarly, on page 15 of the report, in the "Introduction by the Secretary of State", we find the following words:
"At its heart the problem for today's NHS is that it is not sufficiently designed around the convenience and concerns of the patient".
Hurrah! So let us do something about that situation. But we have to wait until we reach page 89 of the report before patients are discussed. Under the heading of

1175
"Changes for patients", we find a suggestion that is much to my liking and one that I should like to commend; namely,
"smart cards for patients, allowing easier access to health records".
I should like everyone to have a smart card.
If, for example, I wanted to change my GP, it would not be easy to do so. I live in Hastings at the weekend, and live in London during the week. I should love to have two GPs, but I can assure noble Lords that it is complicated to find a GP who will take you on his books on that basis. Why? The system that we have established is producer led. However, a smart card system would not be difficult to introduce. You do not have to violate the principles of universality, or those relating to services being free at the point of use, in order to give every patient a smart card. Patients would feel that they had choice. They could use the card to telephone someone and gain access to their health records. We can do that in every other walk of life; but we cannot do so in the service that belongs to all of us.
I remember the debate surrounding council houses—namely, that they should not he sold. Similarly, council tenants were not free to choose the colour of their front doors, because the council would not allow them to paint doors any way that they liked. Indeed, members of my party used to think that it was a socialist principle that council tenants should not be able to choose the colour of their front doors. So I know what I am saying. That was trivial. But, thanks to the party opposite, it was subsequently decided to sell council property. In doing so, people became aware of choice.
In the next 10 years, if not before, I should like to see the development of a real sense of ownership by patients. They should genuinely feel that they can take their identity and go somewhere, plug into the system, and be able to call up someone to access a service. It should not be a top-down system. I do not believe that we need patients' advocates in hospitals. Patients need access: they need to be able to call up different people to gain access. If we can provide that kind of service and combine the free-at-the-point-of-use and the universality principles with patient ownership, that would be a brilliant 10-year plan—except that I hope it can be achieved in four years. All good 10-year plans have to be achieved in far less time.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. I promise that I shall be brief. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for sharing her health experiences with us; and, indeed, for initiating today's debate. Mary Seacole, who was a nurse at the time of Florence Nightingale, would say that my noble friend is a credit to good ministration. That is what reform of the National Health Service is about.
1176
This morning I spent two hours with a group of senior citizens, who did not share the doubts about the reform of the NHS. They want a good, reformed National Health Service. Their past experience of it has not been very good. Their expectations are genuine and realistic.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Government inherited an NHS that existed almost only in name. Hospitals throughout the country were closed and those still standing were under-staffed. Medical and social care moving into the private sector was the expectation. A few years on, we know that there are relatively few issues in the nation that command more public attention, induce more fear and frustration and pose a greater threat than healthcare. Daily, we see highly publicised cases of horror stories throughout the country.
Therefore, it must be a matter of public interest that the Government have set out a 10-year plan of reform to bring the health service to the people—a service that is free at the point of use. No matter whether one is rich or poor, healthcare is available free of charge. The plan is one of reform and investment, with clear national standards: devolution of resources, more choice for patients, and greater flexibility for staff. The Government's investment will provide more nurses and doctors, new and improved hospitals, and primary care centres. All this will work only if we are both bold and swift with such reforms, which is what the elderly people with whom I spent time this morning wish us to be. That is why the Government's plan to establish a commission for healthcare audit and inspection is vital to ensure that higher standards of care for people in this country are easily achieved.
We know that the proposed commission will be independent of the NHS, so that it can objectively assess every part of the health service. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that the health service can no longer be run from Whitehall. They recognise that it serves different communities, and that to serve them well there must be a devolution of power. The services must be local at every point of need to patients, to his or her doctor, and to the local community. Those working at the local hospital must be the ones who are making the real decisions, thereby providing local accountability. That is why the establishment of local primary care trusts is such a bold and brave move in the reforms.
There is also a radical change in nurse training. The new powers given to nurses will enhance their standing and free up doctors to do the things that doctors do best. I welcome the reform of the National Health Service.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the House for letting me speak in the gap. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on her anniversary and thank her for introducing this important debate. In the words of my grandmother, I wish her health and happiness—health must come first, for without health, it is difficult to have happiness.

1177
I passionately believe in the NHS. I do not want to work in a system where I must send the bill to the bereaved or cease treatment because insurance runs out. No government can be unaware that, as we drive up standards in primary care, we increase pressures on secondary care. In my university hospital, open access to MRI scanning from primary care has now meant that neuroradiologists cannot cope. They are drowning under request forms. Capacity is a major problem. It was previously identified in intensive care units and studies have shown that pre-intensive care admissions management of patients significantly alters outcome.
We need concrete milestones to mark the ambitious changes that are planned, but it is through training and retraining that standards will be driven up. I have just come from an exciting study day on ethics at the Royal Society of Medicine, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that patients' views and wishes in planning their care were absolutely at the centre of the debate and taken as a given. There was no dispute that patients' views must be paramount.
But research is also needed and must be safeguarded in our new NHS. It identifies the root causes of disease and evaluates service changes that have been introduced. A recent example of great importance is the awareness of nutrition to the foetus: smaller birth weight babies are at greatly increased risk of developing diabetes. So care at one point avoids storing up problems for the future. But research needs support. Only 8 per cent of cancer patients in this country are in trials. The proportion should be much greater—I should like it to be nearer 80 per cent—if we are to make major breakthroughs. That research must be collaborative. The recent research assessment exercise has sadly done little to promote research and has ended up with departments that scored lower than a five feeling demoralised and risking losing funds.
We hear about the increased number of students to provide the workforce of the future in medicine, nursing and other healthcare professions. That education needs protected resources: teaching premises, equipment and clinical academics to teach. It must be a duty on all providers to promote education, training and research. I know that there was great jubilation at the reassurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that there will be university representation on strategic health authorities. I sincerely hope that the same will be reflected in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, highlighted the damaging bottlenecks in training that will continue to demoralise keen young doctors who are unable to pursue the career to which they feel inspired. Another problem is early retirement. We are losing enormous wisdom that could do much to help the clinical teaching, ongoing training and research that are so important. I urge the Government and the Treasury to consider how to encourage flexibility in retirement, so that people could retire without their pensions being jeopardised and their wisdom used in the NHS for another five to eight years to meet those education, training and research requirements.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for so effectively introducing this excellent debate. Please excuse my sneezes and sniffles, but I know from the Government's excellent public health campaign that there is no point my going to see a doctor. Perhaps my expectations are suitably low and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford will approve.
We can examine the issue on two levels. The first is from the principle of the National Health Service free at point of need and available to all. It is clear from the contributions to this debate that there is overwhelming commitment here to that. We must remember that that has not always been the case, and is not always so even now. I welcome the fact that the principle is widely shared here. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is right to emphasise the value and worth of the NHS. My experience of other health systems is that they are often excellent for the haves but hopeless for the have-nots. That reinforces my support for our NHS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is right to highlight dentistry. That should stand as a cautionary tale of what can happen when services are not universal. Dentistry was never properly integrated into the NHS, and now only 47 per cent of people are on an NHS dentist's list. Given the vital importance of dental care in preventive care, dentistry should surely be far higher on the Government's agenda. That would show a real commitment to universal service.
The second level of the debate refers not to the principle of the NHS but to the National Health Service as it is today. Here, as we have heard, the picture is much more complicated. When, in his most recent Budget, the Chancellor finally agreed to give increased funding to the NHS, a large majority thought that that was the right thing to do. However, only a small minority thought that it would make any difference.
For years, the Conservatives underfunded the NHS and, timidly, when first elected, the Labour Government followed Tory spending plans. It is not surprising that things went from bad to worse in the health service, and the Government seem surprised at how long it takes to turn things around. We seem to have initiative after initiative, reorganisation after reorganisation, in the hope that that will achieve rapid improvements in the quality of service provided by the NHS.
As my noble friend, Lord Clement-Jones, argued, those initiatives may be well-meaning, but constant change becomes in itself disruptive. Organisations are set up to report on parts of the service and visit after visit has to be prepared for. Targets must be met and budget deficits filled.
So what is required for the NHS to flourish? Funding, certainly, and I trust that we are now moving into a more positive era. I welcome that. But the NHS also needs stability and consistency, which has been remarkably lacking. Right now, in the last stages of its progress, there is a Bill which is intended to achieve things that have already been overtaken by a new

1179
document with new plans for organisations that have barely come into being. Can the Minister tell us whether stability and consistency will ever be recognised as themselves having value?
Most importantly, we must address the issue of NHS staff and their morale—a theme that has run through our debate. Surveys have shown how far morale has fallen. With insufficient staff there is too much pressure on those remaining in the service. The Government have necessary and ambitious plans to expand the number of doctors, nurses and other staff. But we know that there are insufficient clinical academics to teach the new medical students. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson, and Lady Howells, have said, we must address the needs of the staff. We need more flexibility, less central control and more involvement.
The time has surely come to focus on people, not structures: the people who staff the NHS and, most importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the patients who use the NHS. No one has yet cracked that problem. The paternalistic but so welcome NHS of 1948 must move into a different era—one that is more patient-centred and finds ways to involve patients. Like the noble Lord, I am sceptical whether the myriad structures to which we have agreed in the Bill and which are about to slot into place will achieve that—although of course we made major improvements on the way.
It is excellent that we all share a commitment to a universal NHS. We differ on how to deliver an improved service for the 21st century.
5 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we can agree that it has been a particularly good debate on a subject in which all of us, in one way or another, have a personal and abiding interest. There can be few better among your Lordships to introduce such a Motion than the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I congratulate her on having done so in a manner that enabled her balanced perspective and experience to shine forth.
Listening to the speeches today, I have been conscious of something that, perhaps, we concede too seldom. Although there is much in health policy that divides one side of the House from the other, there is also a good deal—perhaps, an increasing amount—that unites us. One such issue is the critical importance of service quality in all branches of healthcare. I agree with the noble Baroness that we have world-class physicians and some state of the art facilities. Our staff are hard working and dedicated, and most patients get good treatment and good care. The trouble is that people must wait, sometimes for a long time, for elective surgery. Even more seriously, outcomes in Britain for the killer diseases, where they really matter, are poorer than in other European countries—not just slightly poorer, but a great deal poorer. For cancer alone, it is estimated that if Britain could achieve the survival rates of the best countries in Europe for each cancer, over 25,000 lives a year would be saved.
1180
Two years ago, the NHS Plan represented, by any standards, a sweeping and ambitious blueprint for change in the National Health Service. It contained an impressive array of targets for more facilities, additional staff, new systems of standard setting, new ways of working, better access for patients, better health outcomes and so on. However, it had one common and obvious aim—namely, to enhance quality and to make the NHS more responsive to the needs and wishes of patients. The objective of creating a patient-centred health service, which delivers the highest standards of care, is not something about which government and opposition have any need to argue. The argument begins only when we consider the means to achieve the end.
I have no doubt that the Government are right to say that there are two basic ingredients to improving the health service: one is money, and the other is reform. The trouble is that on the basis of what the Government have done—or said that they would do—I am on both counts something of a sceptic. In fact, one could say that I am something of a wet blanket. I do not like being a wet blanket. The recent Budget set out the Government's commitment to raising substantially the level of health spending over the next six years, over and above the levels previously announced. The White Paper published the following day laid out more of the landscape of reform as the Government envisage it. It is a landscape of greater devolution from the centre, greater patient choice and tighter accountability. What could possibly be wrong with that?
What is wrong with it is that, in key respects, the reforms do not look to go far enough. For example, despite devolution of the NHS budget and the much-vaunted shifting of the balance of power, the system itself is still, in essence, the centralised Bevanite structure of old. Strategic health authorities will, I fear, be the instruments of Richmond House in most key areas of decision making. The multitude of centrally driven targets and directives will still be very much a feature of NHS life.
The NHS Plan says that,
"For the first time, patients will have a real say in the NHS".
However, if we analyse what is on offer, we find that choice for patients will not be genuine choice, merely an ability to express their views and hope somehow that they are heard. We shall still be light years away from the sort of real choice open to patients in other European countries, who can freely elect where they wish to be treated and by whom. The White Paper, Delivering the NHS Plan, talks the language of patient choice, but the conditions necessary for a genuine diversity of provision are not being created, and the inefficiencies and waste in the system will not have been tackled. Even at the end of the reform process, patients will still wait to receive treatment for what, in other parts of Europe, would be regarded as an unconscionable time. The Government have not recognised that the retention of a command and control structure is not compatible with real patient

1181
empowerment, nor with the need to give professionals the freedom to get on with the job that they are qualified to do.
Of course, I am delighted that the Government have recognised some of the basic building blocks of patient choice. One is the establishment of a system in which the money follows the patient. Another is the creation of additional capacity. Ministers are fond of rubbishing the internal market created under the last Conservative government. I would not argue for the re-creation of that system in all its glory; it had obvious faults and shortcomings. However, the least that we should do, in a mature debate, is understand and acknowledge what the internal market tried to achieve. It tried to make the system more responsive to the wishes of patients and, in the process, deliver better care. It could have been done better and less bureaucratically, but the central principle was valid. It was certainly not something wicked or immoral, as Ministers have sometimes painted it.
I do not know precisely how the Government will see to it that money once again follows the patient, as they have promised, or that there really will be a plurality of healthcare providers. However, assuming that both aims are somehow met, it would take a linguistic contortionist to deny that the result was a market in all meaningful senses. It is a pity that Ministers will not admit that; it would lead to a more grown-up discussion if they did.
An integral part of a patient-centred service is patient representation. It really is extraordinary that in the White Paper, Delivering the NHS Plan, no mention is made of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. That makes me wonder how high the issue of patient representation is on the Government's agenda. Today is not the time to repeat the arguments that we had in Committee and on Report on the NHS reform Bill, but, unless the provisions in the Bill for patients councils are retained and other improvements made, we are likely to end up with a patients' voice much weaker than it is at the moment. There will be no lay overview and no ability to lobby or speak out—or, indeed, to get anything done. To the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I say that my logic on the matter is simple. If there is a state-funded monopoly provider of healthcare, the system is very powerful, and the dice are loaded against the consumer. To counterbalance that, the least that we should do is ensure that the consumer's voice is properly heard.
I am not a complete wet blanket. I do not, for a minute, belittle the improvements to service quality that the Government may achieve. All such improvements will be welcome. But how soon will they be delivered? If we examine the targets set out in the NHS Plan, we see that the pace of progress is worryingly slow. IT is an essential part of delivering the plan. The target was for 35 per cent of trusts to have introduced electronic patient records by April 2002. Only 3 per cent of trusts had actually done so. Money is so tight that supposedly ring-fenced IT budgets have been raided for other purposes. On hospital cleanliness, we are still a long way behind
1182
every other European country, as regards the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria. On GP recruitment, where the target is to have another 2,000 doctors in post by 2004, the increase in both 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was precisely 18.
The Government say that they have already achieved their target for nurse recruitment, but a high proportion of new recruits are not full-timers, and there is still a big problem with nurses leaving the NHS. In mental health, the picture is very worrying. Practically no progress has been made in, for example, putting crisis mental services in place or recruiting new staff to help carers. The Audit Commission recently described the task of delivering the national service frameworks for mental health as great.
Overall, the number of patients being treated by the NHS is not increasing. The waiting list figures focus on in-patients, where there has been some progress, but conveniently ignore the considerable rise in out-patient waiting times. I could continue because there are some worrying areas. We all know that easing those pressures will depend critically on an expansion of capacity in both acute and intermediate care.
The Government are placing a lot of reliance on the private sector to provide the extra capacity. However, the private sector needs confidence to invest and I am afraid that the Government are simply not giving it that confidence. For example, there is still no agreement on one of the key building blocks for capacity growth—the consultant contract.
I have concentrated on some of the problems merely to point out that, with the best will in the world, the targets in the NHS Plan are difficult ones. The Minister may find it odd that I should be wishing the Government well in their efforts. I do so genuinely because the NHS, despite what may have been said today, does belong to all of us. However, the Government will be judged not on their efforts but on their success against the objectives they have set. Time will tell whether the route they have chosen is the right one.
5.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on her initiative and, indeed, the high quality of her opening remarks. She said that it was the anniversary of her miraculous recovery and all noble Lords were delighted when she returned to your Lordships' House. The benefit today has been for all to see and hear.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gibson that the NHS is one of our greatest achievements. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Howells that the expectations of the public are very real and very genuine and that they represent an incredible challenge for all those working in the National Health Service at the moment. The Government have clearly defined the direction of travel for the NHS. The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, is a 10-year programme. I believe that it provides the context, the stability and consistency that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked for.

1183
I say to my noble friend Lord Desai that in a sense I disappoint him because it is a genuine 10-year plan. One simply cannot turn around the NHS overnight. So much depends on getting the infrastructure right that I believe we are justified in setting out a long-term plan in the way that we have done. When it was published the Government made it clear that radical improvements in the NHS would require both a sustained programme of investment and reform. That is surely the message of the Budget and the implementation of the plan programme that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced.
There is, of course, much more to do. The effect of decades of under investment still take their toll on services. However, investment and reform are delivering benefits to patients. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the figures show that health outcomes are improving. In the past year alone, death rates from cancer are down by 2 per cent and from heart disease by 5 per cent. Of course, we have to do more, but at least we are moving in the right direction.
Waiting times are falling. A number of noble Lords have mentioned that patients are seeing the benefits of booked admission systems which give them greater choice and convenience. Capacity constraints—not enough staff, inadequate facilities and equipment—have bedevilled the NHS for years. We are beginning to put that right. Staff numbers are increasing. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was a little negative about the increase in the number of nurses. The number has increased by over 20,000 in just two years, achieving the NHS Plan target two years early. The number of doctors is increasing as well.
As my noble friend Lord Turnberg says, and I accept, we need to do more to retain nurses and doctors. Our approach to more flexible working practices is surely the right way forward and we will need to invest more in flexible working and child support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggested, we are looking at ways in which we can prevent the unnecessary early retirement of doctors. As my noble friend Lady Gibson also suggested, in so doing we have to listen to staff. We are working with them. We are in important discussions about new contracts for GPs, consultants and the rest of the workforce. It is important that we take the staff with us.
Extra investment, coupled with the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is helping us eliminate the post-code lottery for prescribing of drugs. In primary care, prescribing of cholesterol lowering drugs is up by one third. Tens of thousands of patients are receiving the latest drugs to combat cancer, heart disease, arthritis and Alzheimer's. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that in relation to beta interferon, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has reported that while it found that the beta interferon drugs were not cost effective, they did recommend discussions between the department and companies. The issue has been resolved. Patients coming into the agreed guidelines can now receive the
1184
drug, consistent with the guidelines published by the recognised professional association. That will lead to consistency across the country.
For the first time we have seen an increase in the number of hospital beds. The go-ahead has been given to 68 major hospital building projects since May 1997. Thirteen have been completed and a further 15 are under construction.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, describing his experience in the building of six hospitals under the PFI scheme. I would say to him that the original problems with PFI have largely been resolved. He is right; the PFI unit is issuing very good guidance to the NHS. Certainly, from my visit to a number of hospitals where they are embarking on major capital schemes with private sector partners, I believe that the NHS has learnt a lot and has considerably more expertise to act as an effective partner with the private sector.
Certainly, we want to encourage the public sector to be entrepreneurial in the way it conducts its business. That is why, when I talk about foundation trusts later, I shall say more about how we can get the conditions right so that those kind of public private partnerships do become as effective as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also referred to the pharmaceutical industry. I agree with him. Making the NHS an attractive base for the industry to work in partnership with is very important. The research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country is responsible for approximately one third of all commercial research and development investment in the United Kingdom. It is essential that we provide the right competitive base for that industry to thrive.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that part of a responsible effective partnership is to ensure that the incentives are there so that clinical trials can take place in this country and, in fact, to ensure that there are more in the future. That is one reason why the Government have produced new guidance in relation to research governance to try and clear up some of the problems in terms of obstacles to getting good clinical trials under way in England.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised a number of important points concerned with infant and child mental health services. We accept the importance of those services and of recruiting the professional people required. We also accept that our workforce planning mechanisms must take that into account as much as they would take into account other professionals, whether in acute services or in primary care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, knows that dentistry is a subject dear to my heart. I, too, pay testimony to the quality of our dental profession. It is a high quality profession. I believe that the dental strategy sets the right tone, consistent with the NHS Plan, for taking forward the progression of the service to the public. I believe that dental access centres have proved popular and effective. I say to those members of the public who have problems with access that their

1185
immediate course of action should be to ring NHS Direct, which will do everything it can to refer them to a dentist performing NHS services.
Very important discussions have taken place between the profession and the department looking at some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised in relation to fees, workload and the treadmill, as dentists are wont to call it. Those discussions have been most fruitful. It was recently announced that demonstration sites will be set up to test out some of the ideas and a final report is expected to be published in due course. As regards the noble Baroness's specific question, perhaps I may assure her that we remain fully committed to ensuring that the full range of dental treatment necessary to restore good oral health will remain available on the NHS.
Dentistry is but one of the many significant developments taking place. All of that is underpinned by new arrangements to enhance service standards, accountability and devolution of power to frontline staff. That is why national service frameworks are so important. That is why the Modernisation Agency has been established to set up and encourage good practice systematically.
Those are all significant developments. The NHS Plan is working, but no one could kid himself that everything is now perfect. The importance of the extra resources for the NHS and social services announced in the Budget is that they allow us to go further in driving forward the programme of reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, that is a massive commitment to the NHS.
What improvements will that extra resource buy? The scale and significance of the investment demands as a minimum that we address two issues. First, we must set out clearly what the extra money will buy in terms of improved service quality. Secondly, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley spoke of the situation pre-NHS. We have also to recognise that an NHS built in the 1940s must be reformed, as my noble friend so recognised. Without radical action now, we will not gain the maximum benefit from high and sustained levels of investment.
Perhaps I may deal with the first of those two issues. People will see tangible improvements in the quality and convenience of services. We will focus special effort on reducing waiting times for treatment because that is clearly the public's principal concern about the NHS. Faster services will support our objective to improve the nation's health and tackle health inequalities. We aim to reduce deaths from cancer by implementing the cancer plan's improvements to the prevention and treatment services. We aim to save around 25,000 lives by 2008 by investment and reforms in prevention and treatment services for coronary heart disease. We aim to improve mental health by ensuring that by 2008 every patient who needs it will have access to round-the-clock crisis resolution and assertive outreach services. We also aim to support a further 100,000 older people each year by 2006, enabling them to live independently at home, through extra intermediate and home care services. We are not
1186
putting aside public health. There will be greater focus on prevention and health inequalities. The extra money will allow a step-change in capacity for which many noble Lords have called.
The scale of reform goes wider. I want to flag up the key points of the programme and answer many of the substantive points made by noble Lords. I turn first to patient choice. As capacity expands, so will patient choice. From this summer, patients who have been waiting six months for a heart operation will be able to choose from a range of alternative providers who are able to offer quicker treatment. We will roll out this new approach to other clinical conditions, beginning in London later this year. By 2005, all patients and their GPs will be able to book appointments at both a time and place that is convenient to the patient.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, tempted me to respond to him on the internal market and I shall do so. Living through the internal market, I have no doubt whatever that its fundamental precepts were fatally flawed. It was very bureaucratic. The money did not follow the patient; the patient followed the contract. It was blatantly unfair to non-fundholding, practices and it was done in a complete absence of national standards and information on which patients could compare one hospital with another.
That is the big difference. We have provided national standards through NICE, through national service frameworks and through an independent inspectorate. We are providing information to patients. We are providing choice for all patients and not just a lucky few. Our proposals for foundation trusts will surely provide the right kind of freedoms and flexibilities within the proper ethos of the NHS.
The second point I want to make is that choice will be underpinned by new incentives. The problem with the NHS over so many years is that the hospitals which do best are often seen to be penalised by the funding regime put in place. That is why we want the hospitals which have the capacity to do more to be able to earn more resources as the money follows, not the contract, but the choice made by the patients. Over time, we intend to develop a system in which the price of individual treatment is based on a regional tariff, allowing local commissioning to focus on the volume, quality and appropriateness of care.
Of course I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg about poorly performing hospitals. Of course they need understanding and support. That is why we have the Modernisation Agency. However, we must also root out poor performance. We cannot remain in a situation in which we tend to think that all NHS hospitals are similar and that all NHS hospitals must be treated in the same way. We must distinguish and provide the right incentives for good performance.
As regards the devolution of power and resources to local level, I shall not respond to the issues of patient empowerment. We have debated the matter frequently and I look forward to debating it again when the Bill comes back from another place—as assuredly it will! However, I want to respond to the point referred to by

1187
both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe—their allegation of centralisation.
At the weekend, I spent an interesting day analysing the amendments which both noble Lords tabled on Report and in Committee during debates on the NHS reform Bill. I found that the majority of their amendments, far from decentralising power, centralised power, giving more to the Secretary of State or to strategic health authorities. I must say that the experience of the NHS under the previous government was not of an administration hell-bent on decentralisation. I well recall the study by the Oxford Regional Health Authority which discovered that the previous government in their priorities for the NHS had 57 different ones—which meant that there was no priority.
I believe that the NHS Plan gives us the right condition for setting out the core priorities for the NHS. Taking that with the national standards and with an independent inspectorate, we can allow so much more freedom at local level. That is what foundation trusts are all about. We want greater local ownership of those organisations and we believe that that is the best way to incentivise performance.
Within those organisations, we too want to see devolution. My noble friend Lady Gibson and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to modern matrons. The reason for developing those roles is to give to nursing staff more authority at the level of the ward so that they can run the ward in the interests of patients.
I suppose that that response is also the answer to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Desai: whether the NHS belongs to the patients or to the staff. There is no question about it: the NHS has often displayed the characteristics of a producer-orientated health service. However, I think that the new services such as NHS Direct, booked admissions and the rapid chest pain clinics demonstrate that the NHS can provide services which focus on the individual patient. My noble friend Lady Finlay suggested that professionals are also responding to the need to do so.
We also wish to break down the barriers between health and social care, which is why we have introduced these new incentives. As my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Gibson pointed out, we have to break down rigid organisational barriers. We must also ensure that accountability is strengthened, both nationally and locally, as well as ensuring that the ethos under which the NHS conducts itself is conducive to the everlasting fundamental principles of the NHS, while allowing much greater room for manoeuvre and leadership at the local level.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford put the debate into perspective when he spoke of his experiences in Africa. There people desire peace, clean water, education and to be able to grow good and wholesome food. It is necessary to reflect on just how well off we are with our National Health Service when compared with so many other countries. But that does
1188
not mean that we can be complacent. And, as was suggested by the right reverend Prelate, in turning around the National Health Service and in making it much more responsive to the public, we in turn have a right to expect the public to be responsive to and responsible for the service. We want to stress patient responsibility.
In addition, we want to utilise other areas of the NHS to provide services where they are most able. For example, I am convinced that our high street pharmacists could do a great deal more in giving advice to the public. I also believe that the establishment of NHS Direct, conferring greater responsibility on nurses and giving more responsibility to the other professions, will ensure that we provide the responsive service to meet those extra demands.
Our debate has centred on the Government's programme of reform, and rightly so. I had hoped that it would also shine a little light on the proposals of the party opposite on health. Alas, that was not to be. So we have concentrated on this Government's approach: that of matching investment with reform.
I have no doubt that this is the right approach. The signs of improvement are already showing. We have the commitment of the NHS behind our proposals. I have no doubt that, given the Budget announcement and the resources and the commitment being brought to bear on the service, we can deliver the NHS that we all want, an NHS that gives a world class service.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, it has always been apparent to me that the NHS arouses great passions: positive, negative and, sometimes, even sceptical ones. That has been made clear once again in our debate today. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The quality of their speeches has been outstanding. I was struck by the wide-ranging nature of the contributions, in particular by the fact that so many noble Lords put health into a wider, societal context, reminding us that improvements in how we treat illness must in the end be dependent on how we nurture and cherish the health of our society.
On that last point, I was also struck by the links between the two debates set down for today. It has been my experience that usually our Wednesday debates address totally disparate topics. However, some of us will go on to debate the relationship between sport, health and social inclusion. Again, that marks a recognition of the links between lifestyle and quality of life.
I should like to thank noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for permitting the inclusion of two extra speeches in the gap. Furthermore, I should like in particular to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his full and thoughtful response to our debate. His skill and experience are much admired on all sides of your Lordships' House. His response today has given a clear indication of why he is so admired.

1189
Once more, with my thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Billinghamrose to call attention to the importance of sport in Britain both for the promotion of health and social inclusion; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the little girl who sat next to me in primary school had callipers on her legs. They clanked as she walked and in the winter her boots rubbed her ankles. The prettiest girl in my class had dark curly hair, bright blue eyes and lovely rosy cheeks. They should have been a warning sign, for when she died, we all had patches stuck on our arms to see if we had been infected. The rest of us went through the usual batch of standard childhood diseases.
Today, more than 50 years on, those diseases of polio, TB, measles, mumps and rubella have been all but eradicated. Our children and grandchildren should be healthier and fitter, but they are not. What else was different then from now? Well, the rest of the children in my class were a scrawny bunch—I ask noble Lords to believe that. We were post-war children fed on post-war rations, walking a couple of miles to and from school every day and playing outside each night at games of football, cricket or tig—whatever the season demanded.
But somehow during those 50 years, the old, deadly communicable diseases have been replaced by new, insidious attacks on our health. The ailments are largely self-inflicted, with young and old, male and female, rich and poor succumbing to their debilitation. The facts are stark. Today, most adults are overweight—more than one in five, while around 8 million of us are technically obese. In England, obesity has trebled over the past 20 years. Unless effective action is taken by 2005, 20 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women could be obese. The outcome is horrendous: heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis and type 2 diabetes are all conditions which can and do lead to premature death.
And of course the incidence of obesity in children is growing at an equally alarming rate. The "couch potato" syndrome is rife. Anxious parents no longer let their children walk to school, much less play outside in the evenings. Sadly, the groups facing the highest risks are those from poorer communities and families. The problems associated with being a "couch potato" are higher in girls than in boys, and in the ethnic and minority communities.
Obesity is not only about personal poor health, it carries a huge price tag for society as a whole. In terms of treatments and lost working days, overall in Britain the loss to the economy totals some £2 billion per year.
Crime is not new and nor is social exclusion. But the scale, the type of offending and the age groups involved are new. We have a major problem. The Prime Minister
1190
has promised to cut levels of street crime by the autumn, but levels of youth crime continue to rise. Shoplifting, street theft, burglary or offences against the person are all serious offences and are being carried out by ever younger children. Many of those offences can be linked to the drug culture.
It is at this point that the vehicle of sport, both as an antidote to obesity and a way of overcoming crime and encouraging social inclusion, comes into play. The Government are acutely aware both of the problems and of the value of sport, not only for young people, but for everyone. It is salutary to note that only 37 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women meet the current government guidelines for physical activity, which comprises just 30 minutes of moderate exercise on at least five days a week.
What is also obvious is that no single project can overcome these twin problems. In recognising that, the Government have set up a whole network of progressive programmes, some of which are already having an effect, while others are coming on stream in the future. Sport is now at the centre of a network of government departments, from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, through to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and, finally, to the Food Standards Agency. All those departments are working coherently towards the common objectives of developing not only more healthy lifestyles, but also lives which are happier and more dynamic. The earlier we tackle these problems the greater the chance of success. In order to move forward we have to take stock of where we are now in relation to sport and where we need to be in the future.
Here I turn to school sport as perhaps the most obvious opportunity to make a real difference to young lives. We have a huge backlog to clear up. The legacy of the neglect of school sport is quite appalling. I cast my mind back to when my two daughters were at their local comprehensive school in the mid 1980s. It was an amazing time. The school was a sporting dynamo. The girls' tennis team became the first, and probably the only, comprehensive school to win the Aberdare Cup, not once but twice. Alongside this were sporting triumphs and a huge participation in all sports by boys and girls of all abilities.
But that of course was before the "stand-off" between teachers and the government of the day—and prior to the feeding of sport to the mercy of the academic barons in schools under the fig leaf of the national curriculum, in effect sweeping PE away from the school curriculum. So not only was PE all but eradicated from the school day in state schools hut, with the loss of teacher good will, with it went the extra-curricular activities too. By the beginning of the 1990s, that same comprehensive school could barely field one team of any standard in any sport. A whole generation was deprived of its sporting rights in school.

1191
But that has changed. The first underpinning of sport is the Government's intention of guaranteeing a minimum of two hours PE per week, a fairly modest beginning but a welcome one. At last we are to have PE specialists coming into primary schools and decent facilities for them. The new opportunities for PE and the sport programme is the most exciting initiative yet established. It offers key innovation for sport which will integrate and support wider local strategies to improve PE and school sport, linking sport, education and health. The funding alone signifies its priority—£581 million from lottery funding, a huge boost and a step change for sport.
As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is among the speakers due to follow me, I have no doubt that she will share her expertise in this area when she speaks later. I look forward to her contribution.
The School Sport Alliance, established in November 2000, has set up the school sports co-ordinators who will deliver high quality PE in schools and link primary and secondary schools and sports clubs in their localities. Five hundred co-ordinators are now in place and many more are planned.
With teachers go facilities. The tide of the sale of playing fields has been stemmed but not yet cured. We await the DTLR's new guidelines with great interest. They must be robust enough to stem the haemorrhaging of playing fields with strict criteria for any sale.
For the first time primary schools are included in new facilities. The Space for Sport and Arts Fund has allocated £150 million for projects to be shared by school and community. Add to this the huge investment by the Government of between £1.5 billion and £2 billion on community sports facilities, many in the form of local authority facility projects, and it is clear that the Government really mean sporting business.
Specialist sports colleges are being established, combining full-time education and training for our talented young people. The next generation of sporting heroes are the role models of the future.
As part of the inter-departmental strategy, the Department of Health is tackling obesity in a variety of ways. Health action zones, the inclusion of fruit into the school diet and a greater emphasis on GP co-operation are crucial innovations in the goal of more healthy communities.
The roles of other key players cannot be overestimated. Sport England and the CCPR are the eyes, ears and hearts of sport in our community. There are 110,000 voluntary clubs which offer a huge range of sporting disciplines, aided by the governing bodies and of course lottery funding from Sport England. No government intervention has been more welcome than the Chancellor's recent announcement of tax and financial assistance to these community amateur sports clubs. We await with enormous interest the take-up of that financial recognition.
1192
Positive Futures, a dynamic partnership between the Home Office, Youth Justice Board, Sport England and NACRO, with the Football Foundation, seeks to divert 10 to 16 year-olds from drugs and anti-social behaviour. As my noble friend Lord Pendry is speaking today, I need say no more, leaving this topic to his immense expertise.
Individual projects are specifically targeted on minorities. Girls in sport need a special approach and my noble friend Lady Massey will doubtless enlighten us in this area, as will my noble friend Lady Howells in regard to youngsters from the ethnic minority communities.
I have outlined, in brief, but some of the Government's initiatives for putting in place an imaginative and robust programme to ensure the future health of our society. More will follow. I hope that the Government will accelerate the audit of sports facilities by local authorities. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that.
We also need to ensure a wider coverage of sport in the media. With public sector broadcasting, is a sports channel still a possibility? By "wider coverage", I mean sport for all, for those with disabilities and for women and girls. Dare I mention at this point Title IX? Perhaps not. That is an item for debate on another day.
Whatever the answers to those questions, I am confident that the Government will continue to underpin sport in our communities, bringing with it greater health, happiness and a chance to belong, thus helping to eliminate those twin scourges of obesity and crime. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has opened our proceedings with an excellent speech that highlighted the kaleidoscope of interests and initiatives which are involved with the subject under consideration today. I hope that she will find that some of the contributions—present company excepted—from these Benches equally add value to what is sure to be an interesting and informative debate.
I should like to concentrate, first, on one aspect of the Motion—that is, the concept of social inclusion, which is critical to the subject under consideration. I shall concentrate on the role that sport and recreation can play in inner city regeneration policies and the wider context of social inclusion in our country. So perhaps I may say a few words on social inclusion—or, perhaps more appropriately, social exclusion.
Social exclusion and social capital are closely linked. Social exclusion, by definition, results in a paucity of social capital. Increasingly it is being recognised that economic activity and social activity both take place within and with reference to a social context. While social relations can act as impediments, as classical theories assume, they can also be a medium for, and catalyst to, economic activity.

1193
Social capital is broadly described as an asset embedded in relationships—between individuals, communities, networks and societies, and between sports associations, teams and clubs. It is an asset which must be managed correctly if its value is to be realised. Social exclusion does not represent good management of this asset.
Policies to tackle social exclusion are rightly assuming increased priority, and sport and recreational initiatives should play a key role in this process. For example, the European Union states that,
"the fight against social exclusion is of the utmost importance for the Union".
This is by and large owing to a better understanding of the fact that social exclusion carries high costs, or reduced social capital. These costs are borne not only by the individuals who experience social exclusion but by society as a whole. They take the form of reduced social cohesion, higher crime and fear of crime, a less skilled workforce and the cost to the public finances of social failure. It follows that if social exclusion is reduced, then society as a whole will benefit.
If we recognise that analysis of social exclusion, it is incumbent on us to recognise the role that sport and recreation can play in addressing the causes of social exclusion. We need only to look at the significant advances that football clubs have made in communities and in community relations to see the value of targeted measures addressed to the promotion of sport as well as to the promotion of social inclusion in their communities. So, in the short time available, I intend to propose a number of initiatives to the Government which would build on the work that I had the privilege of undertaking when considering this issue as Minister for Sport.
I propose that the Government should give every encouragement to local education authorities and individual schools to devote an increased proportion of curriculum time to physical education. This is critical to the goal of a healthier nation. It is critical to wider participation, from whose roots we nurture and culture the excellence and the champions of tomorrow in a healthier society.
Secondly, the Government should establish more practical links between schools, local sports clubs and local education authorities, enabling children to receive coaching in particular sports and to make use of club and community facilities in school time and outside school hours. We have to do more to build the bridges between school sport and ongoing participation in sport and recreation outside schools and in communities as a whole. We have a long way to go to become competitive with other countries in building that bridge, which is essential to a healthier society.
We have waited far too long to see progress on effective dual use of facilities in inner cities and in the country as a whole. Progress is being made, but a major new initiative to boost dual use is required. More sport and recreation elements are needed at the heart of the inner-city initiatives which the Government have proposed and on which they are
1194
working. Perhaps we should ask the Treasury to consider within its fiscal policies the possibility of incentives—including tax incentives—for inner-city sports buildings which offer a full range of services to the local community.
We shall hear of many more initiatives in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may refer to one unusual one. I believe that the Government should work more closely with the British Olympic Association and consider with it what further work the BOA can do in ensuring that the aspirations of youngsters generated by the Olympic Games are encouraged. Something akin to the International Olympic Committee's patronage scheme for events and projects has potential for development. It is by taking these measures, and many more, that we can promote health and tackle the vitally important issue of our time; namely, social exclusion, particularly in inner-city areas.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, for initiating the debate. I believe that the role that sport can play in developing individuals and communities has been underestimated by governments over many years—although I accept the noble Baroness's point that this Government are at long last beginning to make some progress.
The case for promoting sporting activities is obvious: sport promotes healthier bodies and a healthier lifestyle. For those who participate in team sports, it promotes the development of team skills and communication skills, which have wider benefits for the participants throughout their lives. Sport promotes self-esteem and a sense of well-being. Any parent with a child who is keen to take part in sport or to join a team knows that this is a matter of huge importance. If children do get into a team and if they perform well, their self-esteem rises and their outlook on life becomes more positive. This spills over into their school work and into their relationships more generally.
The power of sport to motivate and inspire can, however, help individuals and society more generally to achieve broader goals than those that are simply related to sporting prowess. I want to concentrate my remarks on the ability of sport to promote educational and personal development goals, and in so doing to promote social inclusion. I declare an interest as chairman of the Prince's Trust football initiative and as an adviser to a number of sporting bodies and clubs on their corporate responsibility programmes.
Perhaps I may take two examples which demonstrate the scope for sport in this area. The first is the Playing for Success programme, which is part of the Government's national framework for study support. First referred to in the Labour Party's 1997 general election manifesto, this programme now operates across the Premier League football clubs. At Leeds United, for example—I declare an interest as a Leeds United supporter—it operates from within the ground and is targeted at schools in deprived areas in south Leeds.

1195
The results of this work, based on 10-week courses in the ground, are truly spectacular. For key stage two pupils, the improvement in raw attainment scores in just 10 weeks was as follows: for boys, in reading the figure was 30 per cent, in maths 40 per cent, and in IT 90 per cent. For girls of the same age the improvement in reading was 24 per cent, in maths over 60 per cent and in IT skills over 93 per cent. Those are amazing results. They are possible partly because all the learning is based on football modules, and partly because the parents are suddenly energised in a way that they are not when the children are simply working at school, and because the pupils want to learn. Attendance levels rocket up and truancy levels plummet because of the attachment to sport and because of the power, in this case, of the most important sport in this country—football.
The second example is the Prince's Trust football initiative. This consists of a 12-week personal development programme for teams of 16 to 25 year-olds in association with football clubs. Some 85 per cent of participants are unemployed, and the clubs provide a range of support which varies from club to club but includes the use of the name, the involvement of players, the use of facilities, publicity and match programmes and so on. The Premier League makes a very substantial grant, as does the Football Foundation.
This initiative currently operates at 48 professional football clubs in England. In the current year, some 1,700 young people will have been involved. The initiative is particularly successful in recruiting disadvantaged young people and in leading to successful employment outcomes. For example, 20 per cent of the participants are from the ethnic minority communities, compared to 15 per cent of participants in similar Prince's Trust teams not linked to football. No less than 45 per cent of unemployed participants go straight into a job at the end of the programme, a significantly higher figure than for similar schemes not linked to football. Again, the reason for that has to do with the power of sport to motivate young people, to inspire them, to get them out of bed in the morning, and to get them doing positive things for themselves and for the communities in which they live.
The key characteristics of these and other similar sport-related projects are the commitment of clubs and their representative bodies; partnership with local authorities, which, for example, provide teachers; and partnership with government, which has provided funding and a co-ordinating role.
We are still at an early stage of what is possible in this area. There needs to be wider recognition within government of the value of such programmes. We need greater development of such initiatives in the clubs and sports where they already exist. Such schemes need to be extended to other sports which currently do little in terms of community development. I believe also that we can take a lead in developing best practice internationally.
1196
As with so many other issues, it was Nelson Mandela who most eloquently encapsulated the importance of sport to society. He said:
"Sport has the power to united people in a way that little else can … it breaks down barriers. It laughs in the face of all kinds of discrimination. Sport speaks to people in a language that they can understand".
That is true in South Africa, but it is equally true in Britain.
6 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, for having introduced this most topical debate. All too often, sport has been set to one side while the major issues of state—health, education, law and order, defence and the economy—take centre stage. But sport does matter, partly because it helps to define the spirit of the nation and partly, as the Motion correctly identifies, because it contributes so greatly to the promotion of health and public inclusion.
It is sad that we no longer have the wisdom of the late Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge in this House. He cared so passionately for sport and was a convincing advocate of the cause.
I join other noble Lords in acknowledging the great value of the National Lottery, which has raised more than £3 billion for sport—funds that have been distributed to more than 3,000 projects across the country, covering more than 60 different sporting codes.
In sport, as in gardening, the best long-term results are gained when effort is put into the roots rather than the more visible, familiar blooms. In that context, I wholeheartedly endorse the line taken by the Minister for Sport in another place that the Government will support a London bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games only if it can be shown that the event will benefit sport at grass roots and community level. That is the correct approach to the sports debate.
It is obvious that sport contributes to much more than just physical health. It can teach young people lessons that will serve them well for the rest of their lives, such as the importance of teamwork, of respect for the rules and of winning and—just as importantly—losing with good grace. I am encouraged to note the increasing trend in thinking away from the old consensus that competitive sport in schools is somehow a bad thing and to be discouraged. It is crucial—I stress that word—that sport is made available to children of all abilities, both strong and weak, but we should not discourage genuine sporting competition among young people in our schools. This country has often tended to celebrate a gallant loser—my memory goes back to Eddie the Eagle—rather than a winner, but I hope we are beginning to realise there is nothing wrong, vulgar or unfair in sporting success.
It is alarming to note the ever-increasing amount of time that young children spend playing on computers rather than taking physical exercise. I say that as the father of four children under the age of six. In that regard, I welcome recent government initiatives

1197
mentioned by the noble Baroness that, among other things, support the entitlement to two hours of high-quality PE and sport per week, as well as the development of more facilities and more opportunities for intra-school and inter-school competition. I was schooled in South Africa, where it was compulsory to play at least two hours of sport each day, let alone each week. I also welcome government moves to reduce the number of school playing fields sold to developers. That is an old passion of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn.
The Government are making all the right noises for sport. I warmly welcome the specific commitment of £750 million of National Lottery funding for school sport. I very much hope they deliver. The signs are generally good. There appears to be a new determination within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Sport is much more than healthy minds and bodies. Nothing can so effectively bond the nation. Recent history is full of examples of how sport has sensationally brought a nation together. I was fortunate to attend the FA Cup final at Cardiff last Saturday. I was struck by how the occasion had brought together people from all walks of life. In that stadium, in support of their teams, everyone was equal and everyone felt included.
There have been many innovative projects, such as the launch of football leagues to include and motivate youngsters who might otherwise have been tempted to become involved in crime. To be successful, such schemes have to have long-term funding. These are long-term problems that require long-term solutions.
The quality and quantity of funds for sport is important, but it is also crucial to focus on how those funds are spent. I would be interested to know what innovative proposals the Government are considering to promote sport throughout the country. Britain's approach to sport needs to be fresh and innovative. We need to challenge old methods and accepted ideas to realise our goals. There are always new ideas and the options are endless. Using the Internet to spread modern methods of coaching is just one proposal. Using sporting heroes as positive role models is another. We need to be positive and bold, not only in our words, but also in our actions.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. Over the years I have contributed to many debates in the other place, often with my old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and more recently in this Chamber. I suspect that today's debate could well be one of the most appropriate for the simple reason that my noble friend Lady Billingham has included in the title the reason why sport should be at the centre of all policy-making thinking: its contribution to health and social inclusion. My noble friend is well qualified to lead in this vital debate. I am not sure how many noble Lords know that she has considerable sporting prowess, having played—and is still playing—tennis, badminton and hockey at county level.
1198
Sport is not just for sport's sake; it has a real end to its means and has an invaluable role to play in the social fabric of our country and the regeneration of our communities. It should become a central pillar in government thinking. I am aware that the Minister for Sport is well versed in the role that sport plays in our communities and the terrific impact that it can have in achieving the Government's aims of reducing crime and promoting health and as a vehicle for education and learning. I thank the Minister for Sport in particular for bringing sport to the top of the political agenda.
Before I start in earnest, I must first declare an interest in today's subject matter, as I have the good fortune to be chairman of the Football Foundation, which was established almost two years ago to invigorate the grass roots of the nation's most popular game, to give everyone in the country regardless of age, race, ability or gender, access to decent facilities and to widen the opportunities that the game has to offer Our partnership of the Premier League, the Football Association, the Government and Sport England is revolutionising the funding process of grass roots football by pooling resources into a huge fund for redistribution throughout the game. We are delivering a multi-million pound investment programme for football's grass roots facilities in schools and parks.
Promoting the importance of sport in shaping our society has been a recurring theme of my political life. That message has never been more important than it is now. I am encouraged that progress is being made, but we need much more of it.
The Chancellor's Budget contained two proposals that are central to today's debate and which I intend to cover briefly. The health service was rightly the centrepiece of the Budget. I welcome the tremendous boost of resources to be put into the National Health Service. I ask the Minister to ensure that some of those resources are spent on prevention rather than cure.
One of the simplest ways to achieve that is to widen access to sport and to exercise. Our nation and, dare I say, the political parties, are only just waking up to the realisation that the "couch potato" generation we have allowed to flourish faces real health risks and to the importance of sport in countering those. Indeed, one of the criteria Derek Wanless mentioned in his report on Britain's health needs was levels of obesity. The message from the report is clear—we ignore the role that physical activity can play at our peril. It is therefore heartening to see that the Fitness Industry Association together with the Department of Health is pioneering the principle of "fitness on prescription" to ensure that where appropriate patients can be prescribed exercise.
There is an issue here on which I must chide the Minister. It has been the intention of the Government for I think at least two years in their sports strategy to appoint a special adviser who would work jointly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health. That is a good initiative. It is a shame, therefore, that it has been neglected. I should welcome hearing the Minister expand on those proposals.

1199
Our next message to the Minister is that there must be a real and substantial increase for sport in the Comprehensive Spending Review. I hope that the Minister will make that point forcefully to colleagues. There are many reasons why that should occur. I have already covered the health of the nation, social exclusion and the priority of tackling crime and social nuisance in our society. In our communities the provision of sporting facilities for young people has proved remarkably successful in reducing the type of anti-social behaviour that the Government are rightly determined to eradicate. I should like to illustrate that point by referring to a project that the Football Foundation has supported. I refer to the Leyton Orient Football in the Community scheme which has led to a reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour of over 70 per cent. There is no point in the foundation or anyone else simply building better pitches and improving changing rooms without encouraging participation from those groups. We have to get our kids off their couches and on to those pitches.
For the first time in history football is coming together to fund the future. That is a pattern that we hope to see developing throughout the sporting world in the near future. I look forward to discussing with the Minister for Sport how the foundation can play a part in that. Never before have we had this opportunity; let us not waste it.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who does so much as chairman of the all-party sports group at Westminster in addition to his work for the Football Foundation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on introducing this important debate. I shall not add to the misery of the Minister who is to reply to the debate by referring to Wembley after yesterday's announcement except to say that after reading the detailed exchanges that took place in both Houses I am still mystified as to how we shall fit athletics into the new stadium.
No one doubts the value of sport as regards health and social inclusion, as has been highlighted by all noble Lords who have spoken. However, there are many other reasons why sport is so important to this country. I refer not only to our international standing and to our national competitions but also to the position of the average man and woman at club and school level. That must be a key issue in our debate today.
I shall not address the issue of school playing fields as the Government's statistics conflict to such an extent with those of the National Playing Fields Association that one cannot begin to produce an argument. However, one hopes that the Government are serious about preventing the sale of school playing fields.
As regards sport, the top of the pyramid will not thrive without a broad base, nor will it thrive if sport is not seen to be fun, beneficial to health, interesting
1200
and if facilities are not readily to hand for those who want to participate and compete. There are too many organisations over and above the governing bodies all competing for money from the Government. I refer to sports councils, local government councils, the CCPR, which produced such an excellent manifesto, the strangely named CASC in connection with amateur sports clubs, the National Playing Fields Association and the National Association of Clubs for Young People. They are all doing their best to impress upon the Government how important their position is. I know that the Government respond whenever possible. It is disappointing that the Government altered the good causes arrangements drawn up in the National Lottery legislation so that sport now receives less funding than hitherto due to the demands of the additional good causes. However, I appreciate that substantial extra money has been allotted to schools. I do not forget that a Conservative government introduced the National Lottery legislation which has done so much for sport since its enactment.
Many sports in our country show good results relative to our population. However, performance fluctuates. We had tremendous success at Sydney compared with our disappointing performance at Atlanta. At the recent Winter Olympics we were a little disappointed to receive only one splendid gold medal on the part of the curling team and two bronze medals, one of which, sadly, had to be returned. I hope that that will not undermine our efforts to ban the use of drugs wherever possible.
It is often said that success breeds success. However, I am not always convinced that that is the case. We have had tremendous success in ice skating with John Curry, Robin Cousins and Torvill and Dean, but it is now on a plateau. What middle distance runners do we have now? I refer to former competitors such as Sebastian Coe, Steve Ovett, Steve Cram and David Moorcroft. Example is not always crucially important but somehow or other we must bring our athletics back into the limelight. Much more money is now available for facilities which are improving. It is now for competitors to respond to the opportunities that are now available to them to develop their sports.
I shall now focus my remarks on the lower rather than the top level of sport as the top will look after itself. It is up to the Government, and rightly so, to set the climate for the development of sport, particularly in schools and clubs. I welcome the recent announcement on tax breaks. However, as I indicated in the Chamber when the announcement was made, my discussions with sporting organisations reveal that they are still finding it difficult to interpret the system. The alternative route of charitable status is expensive and equally hard to fulfil. I believe that it would be much better for local authorities to give a blanket, 100 per cent mandatory rate relief. Such a system would be straightforward and would save a great deal of effort.
We have already discussed the heavy classroom workload of schools which leaves little time for PE which we all agree is important. I refer also to the absence of free time between the end of the school day

1201
and the departure of the school bus. I hope that some compromise can be reached to allow pupils time to participate in sporting activities. We must improve the bridge between schools and clubs. I refer to the move from participating in sport at school to club sport participation. Clubs must seek out those with sporting talent and include them in their membership.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that it is terribly important to encourage team games. They breed leadership and develop character and a sporting spirit, as was evident in the late Lord Cowdrey. They also give pupils confidence. I hope that we shall continue to encourage outward bound activities which do so much to develop young people's characters. There have been some unfortunate court cases in that regard but we must strike a balance between unacceptable foolhardiness and stretching children to the limit, which is so important to their future development.
Much is going on in this area at the present time and I have great hopes for the future. However, much more needs to be done. To sum up, let us try to simplify procedures on the financial and education sides. If we succeed in that, we can progress much more quickly than we are. There is a great deal of marking time and awaiting the decisions of committees. I hope that we shall try to speed up processes to help sport develop as quickly as possible.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Billingham for raising this debate. It provides me with an opportunity to discuss the achievements of the Caribbean British in sport and the impact that that has had on the community as a whole. I shall direct my few words to the social inclusion aspect of that.
The overriding ambition of the settlers of the 1950s and 1960s, who came to Britain from the Caribbean islands, was to secure self-development for themselves and to acquire a good education as a vehicle for upward mobility for their children. Sport was not considered a means of upward mobility; rather, it was regarded as a setback to their aims and plans. Sport was considered to be a waste of time and teachers were suspected of keeping children playing sport at the expense of academic subjects. To those people, there could be no semblance of a balance between academic and sporting endeavours. Engaging in academic achievement was seen as the only means of upward mobility and the creation of an economic base. That was regarded as outweighing any other activity.
Parents worried about children wasting energy on non-essentials to the detriment of getting a degree and learning the skills that could maximise their earning potential. Living in a hostile environment, that concentration by parents seemed to be teaching children to walk so steadily that they would be better than those with whom they competed. With hindsight, it could be argued that parents were in danger of hewing paths that were too straight and narrow
1202
through difficulties seen through their own eyes, not realising that their children had to carve out their future.
Against that background, clubs were unwilling to embrace the sporting prowess of young British Caribbean people. However, those people first emerged in sport in the field of athletics—in track and field events—where it was evident that individuals' hard work could pay off. The superior performances of Arthur Wint, Tessa Sanderson, Linford Christie, and Denise Lewis slowly emerged. Today's track and field events are made up of 40 per cent black British.
Another relevant area of sport is boxing, although I have a horror of the sport myself. It has been a high earner for many young black men. As a consequence, children have benefited from the financial successes of their fathers. Their success has made them household names in this community. Everyone has heard of Bruno, Chris Eubank and Lennox Lewis. Their new-found wealth has raised their standard of living and that of their families and they have used their wealth to fund opportunities for many in their community. Sadly, some of that money leaves this country because people are sent to America to study, where they feel more welcome.
Those who showed talent in football in the 1960s and 1970s found that professional clubs were unwilling to embrace their talents, and many drifted away disillusioned. Club managers went on record as saying that black players could not perform when football pitches were covered in snow and that black players could play only in positions that depended on speed. Today we know that to be a fallacy. However, it took young men such as Garth Crooks and John Barnes and many others to show the athletic success of black performers. That and the attitudinal change among new club managers in football created new opportunities for black young people. That made them role models to black young people and to the whole community.
The combination of hard work and flair on the part of young black footballers and the greater open-mindedness among football managers led to an increase in the numbers of black footballers in the past 20 years. Today, all clubs in the Premier League have two or more black players in their squad. In the lower divisions, the numbers are greater still. Their earning capacity has been much enhanced. Perhaps their greatest contribution to community relations is the fact that they are role models across the race divide. The Let's Kick Racism Out of Football initiative has been good. I urge the Minister to extend it to all sports.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, for instigating this debate. We have had a number of such debates during the years that I have been in the House. Several noble Lords have already referred to the debate on sport about three years ago, when Lord Cowdrey—God bless him—opened the batting and the noble and

1203
right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, responded from the Labour Benches. That was a poignant moment when the two openers were reunited.
I want to say a quick word on social exclusion. Other noble Lords have dealt with that effectively, including my noble friend Lord Newby, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. We live in an age that puts great pressure on community life—it seems to force us apart. I sometimes think that that almost leads to voluntary ghettoisation. In that context, community amateur sports clubs are a preeminently powerful tool for organic and natural community involvement across all barriers—age, class, gender, race, occupation and geography. Those clubs are wonderful. They have been underestimated in the counsels of government hitherto. I can think of some reports that scarcely refer to the extraordinary role that sports clubs play.
I am immensely grateful to the Government for taking on board the protestations made in this House, in the other place and outside these walls about the need to at least provide a favourable tax regime within which community amateur sports clubs can function.
Before discussing that, I point out that community amateur sports clubs provide experiential learning that is in diminishing supply in the world these days. There is a brutal egalitarianism about being in a rugby scrum. One buttock is the same as another. Does it function effectively? Does it brace itself and lurch forward at the right moment or does it not? Colour, race, occupation and wealth are immaterial—and how wonderfully immaterial.
I turn to playing fields, which have been briefly mentioned. I urge the Government to do something about the continued disposal of school playing fields. I am told by the National Playing Fields Association that since 1st October 1998 there have been 185 disposals of school playing fields and only six refusals. I am told that in the financial year 2000–2001, compared with the preceding financial year, the number of planning applications for building consent for playing fields has risen by 45 per cent. One problem with tracking that is that planning authorities currently have no obligation to report the outcome of those applications.
During my few remaining moments I shall turn to a matter to which I have devoted myself assiduously these past two-and-a-half to three years; namely, the attempt to obtain tax concessions for community amateur sports clubs. I believe that it is a credit to the Treasury and the DCMS that a twin track has been provided to the world of sports. They can follow either the charity route or the route of registering with the Inland Revenue. In the latter case, they receive a lower level of concessions but very important ones none the less. At the same time, they do not have to comply with all the requirements of charity law.
One issue that continues to perplex the sporting world is why the mandatory 80 per cent rating exemption for CASCs—community amateur sports
1204
clubs—which are charitable is not to be made mandatorily available to clubs that do not go the charity route.
I also believe that it is a little counter to common sense to cap the amount of fund-raising which a non-charitable club can undertake in any year to £15,000 of money raised. That figure is gross; it is not net of expenses. I do not see the point of that. Of course, a club that is not registered as a charity will not have the option, as charities do, of setting up a trading company which can then covenant back all the profits into the charity free of tax. I hope that the Government will reconsider that matter. Any change will obviously not happen this year but it may next year.
The same applies to rental income. No limit is placed on the amount of rental income that charities can receive free of tax, but there is a £10,000 limit for CASCs. That provision will not apply to many of them, but some will have some significant rental income which could be the backbone of their club income.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the guidelines for charitable status which the Charity Commission set out at the end of last year. Let us make no bones about it. The pressure from this place and the threat, if I may express it in that way, of the Inland Revenue route for tax exemptions undoubtedly made the Charity Commission gird its loins and come forth with something with which it had not come forth hitherto—that is, a means of obtaining charitable status for a community amateur sports club.
I believe that there are deficiencies in the guidelines that the commission has produced; for example, it considers that sports such as angling, gliding and snooker may well not be able to come within the charitable definition, although I believe that many in this House may wonder why. That is partly because it does not give physical dexterity, as opposed to physical health and fitness, any degree of importance in that judgment. I also believe that the arrangements that the commission proposes with regard to social membership of charity sports clubs are unrealistic, as are those regarding team selection and the limitation of the exemption itself.
My time is up but, in closing, I hope very much that in the years to come there may be a coming together of the twin tracks to provide one track. Frankly, I believe that they are so close and that the conditions for membership of each are so near that we could avoid much undue complication by working towards that goal.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Pendry reminded us a few moments ago, my noble friend Lady Billingham is a distinguished sportswoman in her own right. I, too, congratulate her on the way in which she introduced this debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to concentrate on how football—our national sport—can, and should, realise its potential in the community

1205
and combat social exclusion. This subject was the third to be tackled by the Government's Football Task Force, on which I had the honour to serve as vice-chairman. That report contained 13 main recommendations, and it is to the credit of the Government and the football authorities that the majority of them have been taken seriously and implemented.
We paid tribute in the report to the extent and sophistication of the community programme in English football—how players at all levels give freely of their time carrying out thousands of community visits every year. Charlton Athletic is just one example of a club with a highly developed football-in-the-community programme. Other clubs have already been mentioned by other speakers. Anyone who studies the Charlton dub website will see that it carries out excellent work, from the Learning Through Football educational initiative to tackling truancy and estates and probation programmes.
The sponsor of the national football-in-the-community project is, perhaps unusually, Railtrack. That company has been much criticised in other contexts but here it is certainly getting something right. It sees the programme as fitting in with its own efforts to reduce the 20,000 or so railway crimes committed each year, involving trespass, vandalism, placing objects on the track, stone throwing and criminal damage. The reason that it is such a good fit is that the main culprits of those crimes are eight to 14 year-old males—the same target age group for much of the football-in-the-community programme.
Much excellent work is also being carried out at other clubs. West Ham United, for example, is making a particular effort to encourage people from the Asian community to participate in football. That includes a programme of coaching beginners in local schools' PE sessions, the provision of Football Association teaching certificate courses, a coaches' development scheme to help young Asian players to learn appropriate skills and to go on to an FA coaching certificate course, and, for the really promising players, the opportunity to be integrated into what one might call the "mainstream" of the West Ham United club.
The Football Task Force's second report on racism drew particular attention to the disproportionately low numbers of Asians taking part in football as both players and supporters. Therefore, we should welcome every initiative that is now being taken to put right that deficiency.
The All-Party Football Group in another place received a presentation on 23rd April from Leeds United—a club referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, a few moments ago. That club's commitment to the "Kick it Out" anti-racism campaign is indisputable and highly commendable. But I suspect that Leeds knows better than any club how an excellent reputation for anti-racism initiatives can be damaged by the throw-away remarks of a so-called "comedian" at a sportsmen's dinner or by inappropriate behaviour on the part of high-profile players.
1206
The responsibility of players to set a good example is enormous. For the players at the highest levels, the scale of the transfer fees and the sums of money that they earn are beyond the comprehension of almost everyone. And now, with the collapse of ITV Digital, the situation has changed—certainly for the clubs below the Premier League. This is not the moment for an inquest into how such a contract could go so drastically wrong. However, many people will want to know whether an offer of £74 million was made by ITV Digital over the weekend of 13th and 14th April, and, if so, why it was rejected now that it is clear that the clubs are likely to receive nothing.
In the crisis caused by the ITV Digital collapse, the Professional Footballers Association—the players' union—appears to be taking a responsible attitude and is willing to negotiate more realistic contracts for many of its players. Nevertheless, according to a survey published in the Guardian yesterday, more than 600 players will be out of work this summer as a direct consequence of that. And, following the collapse, it is unacceptable for the fans alone to be made to pick up the bill through higher admission charges at clubs which over-stretched themselves with budgets and wage costs that they could not afford, spending the television money before they received it.
High admission charges were the principal grievance of the football supporters who gave evidence to the task force, and we welcomed the subsequent establishment of consumer relations departments by the Premier League and the Football League. Those activities are now to he monitored by the Independent Football Commission, recently set up by the Government under the chairmanship of Professor Derek Fraser, whom I had the pleasure of meeting a couple of weeks ago. The members include the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and my right honourable friend Mrs Ann Taylor, MP. The supporters' expectations are very high, and I hope that Professor Fraser and his colleagues will not allow themselves to be deflected from acting with genuine independence in defence of football's customers.
Many people in the game talk about the "football family"—an all-embracing concept which covers players ranging from Premier League stars, such as David Beckham, down to the Halifax Town goalkeeper. It also covers the competitions in which they play, the governing bodies which regulate their activities and the supporters who follow them. The football family is a fine idea. What good families do in times of trouble is to stick together and rally round to help the relatives in difficulty. I hope that we shall see some evidence of that over the coming weeks.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in this debate. Not so long ago I spent seven hours in his car travelling back from the League Cup final. We put sport, the world and everything else to rights in that time.

1207
This is the fourth occasion in less than three years that I have taken part in a debate on sport in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I am extremely happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, initiated today's debate. Does not that make the point that the Government are not yet getting it right? We are not satisfied that sport is run, managed, funded—or anything else—adequately in this country. We have a long way to go. I do not say that we have not got anywhere; but we still have a long way to go.
I am not talking of sport in the sense of football, football and football, which, in my opinion, is sometimes too much at the centre of everyone's thinking, in particular government's. I am thinking much more of sport for all; of all the recreational types of sport which are often not so glamorous, such as walking, hiking and bicycling. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, sport needs to be at the centre of parliamentary thinking because of the very title of this debate.
In this country we have a serious health problem, a serious youth crime problem and—I do not mean to be too pessimistic—a falling overall standard of achievement in sport broadly, world-wide. We are not quite meeting our expectations. To some extent, sport is not being taken seriously enough for the good things that it can do. If sport is at the centre of government thinking and understood on the broadest basis, it can do much good.
As I mentioned on the last occasion I spoke, we have the highest ever obesity rate in this country. Something like 20 per cent of the country suffer from an obesity problem, particularly young people. Surely, sport should be better organised and better managed, especially in schools, so that there is not less than two hours per week in the curriculum for compulsory physical education. I prefer to call it that rather than sport. It used to be called games, but whatever it is, it is a form of physical recreation.
As I have mentioned, we have community problems. As many noble Lords have said, sport is a wonderful vehicle for bringing together people of all creeds, colours and classes. That has been proved time and again, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. He mentioned South Africa, the wonderful example of what was achieved there and how sport has been used as a vehicle to bring together communities and break down barriers. One of the great things in life which we should try to do—I have certainly done so in my little part of the world—is to break down barriers. One thing the Irish have never fought about is sport; they play together.
Having said that, where are we now in the funding of sport? I have heard people say that the Government have done a lot to date. However, before the debate I checked with Sport England against some figures I used in a speech in December. The facts are that Sport England's share of lottery money in 1995–6 was £300 million. It is estimated that by 2004 it will be down to £185 million. Direct grants and the like are also falling. At the same time grants to the Arts
1208
Council have increased from £237 million to £254. Clearly, sports funding is not at the centre of government thinking. My purpose and message today to government, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry said, is "Put it at the centre of your thinking. Co-ordinate your officials and get the best value for money from sport and recreation". I sincerely believe in sport. I have spent my life in it, in one way or another, as noble Lords will know. I believe it is seriously under-used as a tool for the betterment of society.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have offered their congratulations to my noble friend Lady Billingham. She is to be commended not only for her initiative in securing the debate but for the relevant and interesting speech with which she introduced it. I agree with a large part of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Most people have referred to football, and I shall too, but there are many sports. We invented most of them in these islands, whether it is curling or badminton, cricket or rugby. It is a pity that we do not do better at the very sports which had their birth in these islands.
My reason for speaking in the debate is as much because of the reference to social inclusion as to health. Over the past three or four years I have watched a gang of boys in their early teens, of the kind of age I would have taught a long time ago, engage in crime, vandalism and hooliganism almost without pause on every fine summer's day. Then, a small group of people set up a football club. There was not enough for those youngsters to do. I wrote to our parish council only last week to say that that initiative has been one of the best things to happen in our community for years. It has achieved enormous success. There are four teams of boys and a team of girls. The boys have something with which to identify and are now part of the community. They turn up for training. They have had to promise not to drink, take drugs or live unhealthy lives. The initiative has certainly helped to transform the community, which is a cause of great relief.
However, at the same time I recognise that we are not about gearing the nation to create professional sportsmen. We want to see a healthy nation, not necessarily a nation with a few people earning vast sums of money while everyone else sits and watches them. My noble friend referred to the priority given to young people's health in the post-war government. To some extent that was a legacy of the enormous anxiety which was generated in this country in the first years of the 1900s when it was found that the vast proportion of people seeking to enter the Armed Forces were not fit enough.
The health of young people in the early part of the last century was bad. However, that was because of poor housing, poor diet and poverty. The bad health with which we are now concerned is not caused by poverty, although it may be caused by a poor diet of junk food. It is perhaps a pity that we did not give continued priority to orange juice, milk and school

1209
dinners of a nourishing kind. Too many people buy chips and chip butties and then go home and watch television, cheering on football clubs from their seats.
My reason for speaking is also because of a letter I read a few days ago in one of our local newspapers. It was from a citizen in a parish a few miles from my own and expressed deep regret and sadness that organisations for young people in that parish were about to end because there were no volunteers. However, there are plenty of people who will moan about the crime and irresponsibility that will develop because the kids have nothing else to do.
I look at one organisation with which I am most closely connected. I refer to the Air Training Corps. I am involved with an absolutely superb squadron. It is one of the best in the country. This year we will complete more than 50 Duke of Edinburgh's Awards. The boys and girls in the squadron will play a whole variety of sports and achieve a great deal in them. The kids are good, but we do it because we have a group of extremely good—both uniformed and civilian—instructors. They set high standards. The kids are given great challenges and stimulus and they achieve a great deal. But without the leaders they would probably not achieve very much.
I think back to a visit I made to East Germany in the early 1970s when the East Germans were doing well in a whole range of Olympic activities. It was an austere society. It was an uncomfortable and uncomforted society in many ways. If one went into the stores there was little to buy, except sporting goods of high quality, high standard and relatively low price. The East Germans achieved a great deal because the whole of society was geared—as a political distraction perhaps—to achieving success on the sporting field.
Those who are calling for a higher priority to promote health and social inclusion and to generate greater national pride are to be commended. For that reason, I trust that the Government will listen carefully to the comments made by my noble friend and by a number of other noble Lords—and not merely about football. Perhaps I may also suggest that those of us who are older and were once engaged in active sport might have an opportunity to watch test cricket. Young people might see good skills and entertainment but it would bring comfort and consolation to those of us who would regret that omission.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, sport is not a topic on which I have ever addressed your Lordships' House before. Aside from the odd game of tennis and an awareness of the problems created by having both Arsenal and Manchester United supporters in my family—and more of that tonight no doubt—it has never been at the top of my interest list.
All that changed when the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), the largest of the lottery distributors, of which am chairman, was given a £750 million programme to deliver. The figure quoted earlier by my noble friend was the figure for England only. So our physical education and sport in schools programme is
1210
£750 million in total. That is by far the largest of our round 3 programmes and by far the biggest single investment in school and community sport ever made.
Through this programme we intend to bring about a step change in the use of PE and sports facilities for young people and for the community in general throughout the United Kingdom. But—and this is the reason I am so delighted to focus on my noble friend's debate today—this step change is intended not just to offer sporting opportunities but to have long-term impacts on key issues facing local communities, such as health, education, crime and drug use—all the things, in short, which contribute to social exclusion.
Our programme will modernise existing and build new indoor and outdoor sports facilities for school and community use. Up to 20 per cent of the funding will be available for revenue to support the development and promotion of the new facilities for use by the wider community. It will modernise existing or build new outdoor adventure facilities.
The primary beneficiaries will be children and young people but wider community use will also be essential for most projects. Like all NOF's programmes, the money will be targeted at the most disadvantaged areas.
Funding will be allocated to local authorities on the basis of their level of deprivation and existing disadvantage in terms of facilities. Local education authorities will act as the lead organisations, but they will only receive funding if they involve a range of other partners, such as sport development and leisure departments, sports governing bodies, the NHS, both primary healthcare trusts and NHS trusts and key voluntary sector organisations.
There is, unsurprisingly, with that amount of money available, tremendous interest in the project. I am grateful for the positive response and co-operation which we have received from sports organisations and all local partners. We hope that some fast-tracked projects will be launched this summer.
In our previous debate today in your Lordships' House, in which I also took part, we focussed on health. Much attention was given to public health issues and to prevention, as again has been given attention in our debate. The major benefits to health which increased physical activity brings are well known, but we should remember that they are not only physical but mental. There is twice the risk of coronary heart disease and threefold risk of a stroke if one does not take physical exercise. But research repeatedly shows that physical activity has an impact too on one's emotional state, lessening stress and increasing self-esteem.
We need to learn the habit of, and benefits of, physical activity at an early stage of life. Once learned they are likely to stay with us.
We must also fully understand that the advantages of team games may be hard to see for some young people, compared with the delights of the play station, which is why we need to be innovative in our approach. We need to include dance, walking, climbing,

1211
skateboarding and so on in our plans. It is not the level of performance which matters but the participation. We must ensure that facilities provided for exercise of all kinds are fit for the purpose and accessible and available at all times that they are wanted. It is most important to encourage community participation so that families may use them together.
We know that this programme will provide special opportunities for schools to build good relationships with other agencies and groups in their communities. For example, working in partnerships with the National Health Service, schools can develop exercise and leisure opportunities which benefit the whole community and so cut the risks from heart disease and some forms of cancer. They can also provide opportunities for adults to become engaged in some form of leisure or recreational activity, not only as members of the pupil's family but also as teachers, coaches, officials or administrators.
The promotion of social inclusion is a key outcome which our programme seeks. Funding for the programme has been allocated so that more is available in the more deprived areas. We expect that the programme will play a major part in funding facilities and activities which can improve the quality of life for the whole community.
Several reports, and several of your Lordships, have already highlighted the positive effect which sporting activity can have on social exclusion factors, such as involvement in crime and in reducing drug and substance misuse. Young people can also use the experience of physical education to assist in their work in other subject areas, to enable them to gain increased benefits from their education, alerting them, we hope, to the benefits of life-long learning. In addition, it can help young people develop self-esteem, pride in their achievements and a consciousness of their responsibilities as citizens.
Your Lordships may feel that these are ambitious claims for a physical education programme. But I am confident they can be achieved through the excellent partnerships which have been established and the commitment of the agencies involved in delivering this important initiative.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate presented to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. I want to talk about the role sport can play in helping to foster social inclusion. I shall do so from the perspective of chairing the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. I declare that interest at the outset.
I should make it clear that this is my début speech from the Cross-Benches. I find myself in a rather curious position as a result of being embroiled in a number of tangled events, which we need not go into here. I hasten to add that this is not as a result of, as some newspapers have said, a bad falling out between the Government and I.
1212
Many of those young people who offend live on the most rundown estates in our society. They often have problems at home, live in households with one parent or no or a single wage earner, and are regularly not in school. When one asks these young people why they started offending one often gets the simple answer "Boredom". It was much easier to go out with their mates on the streets, involve themselves in offending and antisocial behaviour, simply because there was nothing terribly interesting to do in the area in which they live. For these young people social exclusion and offending go together.
That is why for the past two years the Youth Justice Board has funded about 70 youth inclusion programmes for the 50 to 60 youngsters most at risk of offending in some of our highest crime estates. We also fund about 100 school holiday schemes called Splash which provide activities for at least 100 13 to 17 year-olds, many of whom run a high risk of offending. A common feature of all these projects is a significant amount of sport involvement—football, cricket, climbing, canoeing, swimming and even rugby. There is also a considerable emphasis on outdoor activity, recreation and keep fit activities.
The results of the year 2000 projects are extraordinarily encouraging in terms of crime reduction. For example, they range from a reduction in crime of about 32 per cent in Doncaster to 14 per cent in places like Wrexham and Gateshead. A youth inclusion programme in Sunderland, for example, has produced a 15 per cent reduction in juvenile crime, a 55 per cent reduction in the number of arrests of 13 to 16 year-olds and a 75 per cent reduction in permanent exclusions from school.
The evaluation of the 2001 Splash schemes will soon be published and will show an even more encouraging view than those for the year 2000 projects. We are now working closely with DCMS and DfES Ministers and the New Opportunities Fund to roll out many more of these summer activity programmes this year in the police force areas where there are high levels of street crime. The Premier League and the Football League have been involved in this work.
I wish to pay tribute to the Premier League for the help and support that we are receiving in these programmes and for its willingness to open up its community programmes to many young offenders being dealt with by youth offending teams.
I believe that we have gone through a rather bad period over the past two decades when many of our young people in deprived areas have had diminishing access to sport and outdoor activities. The number of organised games in schools has been reduced, the number of open spaces has shrunk or become unsafe and the number of adults organising and supervising games in many of these deprived areas has diminished. Many of our young people who are socially excluded have drifted into crime as a result of this movement away from access to sport and recreation in their areas.
I believe that we are now coming out of this dark period with great encouragement from the Government and bodies such as the New

1213
Opportunities Fund. We all tip our forelocks to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in the hope that some of the funding will move in the direction of some of these projects.
However, what we need to understand with the socially excluded youngsters I have been speaking about is that we have to go to them: they are often unable to come to us. That is a big change which we need to address in the way in which we provide opportunities and programmes for many of these youngsters. I welcome the fact that the Government have linked the social exclusion agenda with sport and have called on our sporting bodies and many of our sporting icons to play a fuller role in tackling social exclusion and the offending agendas. We need to go further and faster along the path we are now following, with more sports and recreation opportunities in our most deprived areas and with sustainable funding over the long haul.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this Motion because it gives me the chance to speak about a sport which I have enjoyed for over 50 years; a sport learned at an early age, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley advised.
Noble Lords have spoken of health. Yes, my sport is healthy. It is outdoor, regular and fairly gentle without the sudden shocks and knocks which can do so much damage. It is good for the heart and lungs and it is also good for the waistline, a need powerfully expressed by my noble friend Lady Billingham. I read recently that 51 per cent of adults in the UK are now fatter than is good for them, the "couch potatoes" referred to by my noble friend Lord Pendry. My sport provides the gentle exercise which prolongs life expectancy and improves health by dealing with this.
My noble friend's Motion speaks of social inclusion. I have engaged in my sport with young and old, men and women, rich and poor. Indeed, it crosses all the social barriers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. My sport is the ultimate in social inclusion. One can engage in it with one's spouse. But my sport is a lot more than this: it is also an important means of transport. I speak, of course, of cycling.
Unfortunately, when cycling is discussed in your Lordships' House it is usually in terms of transport. Noble Lords complain of cyclists riding on the pavement or being aggressive and a danger to pedestrians. Of course, I have never done any of those things, but my attitude is that where there is traffic congestion of any kind the role of all—pedestrians, cyclists and motorists—is to practise tolerance, consideration and good manners, and that describes cyclists.
Sadly, that does not seem to be the attitude of all road users. Cyclists are sometimes forced on to the pavement by cars travelling or parking in the cycle lanes. Cyclists can be forced off the road by cars whizzing past very close by. The answer, of course, is to have proper cycle lanes separated from the traffic by a kerb or by a barrier, instead of just a line painted on
1214
the road; or indeed there could be special cycle paths. Fortunately, some local authorities are now providing special cycle paths to enable children to ride safely to school or for commuters to ride safely to the station while at the same time taking the physical exercise which noble Lords consider to be so essential.
These paths are for cyclists and pedestrians only and go some way towards reducing traffic congestion. Indeed, I congratulate the DTLR on organising a cycling projects fund to encourage more people to cycle. As John Spellar, the Minister for Transport said recently,
"Cycling is excellent exercise and people who choose to cycle rather than use their car play an important role in reducing pollution".
I am glad that he mentioned exercise because, as well as being a means of transport, it is also a sport. One can race or one can tour. Racing has all the thrills, excitement and pressures of competitive sport. Touring is different. There is something very liberating about touring by bicycle. One is nearer the landscape, and freer to roam. Indeed, it is a sport of free spirits. It is also healthy exercise. Cycling does all the things that the Department of Health is trying to get us to do and which, as my noble friend Lady Billingham told us, we ought to do. The Department of Health tells us that riding a bike is more likely, by a factor of five, to prolong one's life rather than shorten it. So much for the dangers of cycling.
That is why cycling is so popular. There are several million bicycles in Britain. Many people in your Lordships' House cycle, such as Law Lords, chairmen of Select Committees, Back-Benchers of all parties; senior and junior staff and officials, even political advisers and spin doctors. Surely that is inclusive.
But very few Ministers cycle. After all, we need them to be fit. So perhaps I can persuade my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues to take up cycling. Not only would they enjoy better health and fitness, but just think what it might do for their ministerial careers. After all, the absence of emissions and the sustainability of cycling will make Ministers very popular with the Prime Minister because he is personally leading Britain's delegation to Rio + 10 this summer to discuss this very matter.
Cycling Ministers would be actively demonstrating joined-up government not over two but over three departments. It would be helping the DTLR and the Department of Health, as well as DEFRA, to achieve their objectives. So not only would they be pleasing the Prime Minister, but also the Deputy Prime Minister. They would also be pleasing the Chancellor, not simply by reducing the cost of the government car pool, but just think what it would do for Minister's productivity. Cycling is invariably faster in central London. And, of course, cycling is very new Labour: both are socially inclusive, both have been established for some time and both have recently reinvented themselves with great success.
So there is the magic of cycling. Not only is it healthy, good sport and efficient transport, it is also an activity which supports and incorporates so many

1215
facets of government policy that cycling and supporting cycling must do wonders for anybody's political career. I rest my case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether it would surprise him to know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is a familiar figure striding the hills of the Stour Valley.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I look forward to hearing more about that. However, I should like to begin my remarks by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, for instituting this debate. Not only has it brought out a panoply of stars; indeed, although I was already aware that the noble Baroness was a great tennis player, the debate has also made me aware of how much she has organised for her family, and of how much more she has achieved.
A debate like this in your Lordships' House brings out not, perhaps, a glittering array of stars, but gold medallists—one of whom, my noble friend Lord Moynihan, has temporarily fled the coop. Perhaps he realised that I was about to speak; I do not know. My noble friend Lord Glentoran's record goes back to 1964. I remember him 50 years ago at school, when he was known as "Mr Dixon". I enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the question of which buttock, but certainly in Eton field games, size mattered. As I left school at the age of seventeen-and-a-half weighing just nine stone, noble Lords can imagine that I was not exactly one of the most successful young sportsmen. Never mind, we have tennis players; and, I understand, a cricketer to follow. We also have a notable skier among us, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and an archer, namely, my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm, who is a member of the Royal Company of Archers, Queen's Body Guard for Scotland.
Before my noble friend sees fit to take the mickey out of me, he may recall that in 1975 both he and I, as well as a group of other parliamentarians, visited the Sobell Sports Centre in Islington where we found the most marvellous state-of-the-art sports centre run by Mr David Hemery. Many noble Lords may remember him in the 400-metres hurdles in, I believe, Mexico in 1968. The centre is a marvellous place for young people to practise sport. However, I understand that the main problem there—as, indeed, is the case with many other centres—is the human element; that is, people to run such centres of excellence. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, pointed out, in many cases human effort is needed to ensure that young people can use the facilities in safety, and, at the same time, be encouraged to participate.
We have also heard that teachers must be much more professional these days. They have very little spare time; indeed, much more of their time is spent attempting to ensure, for example, that the four children of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, actually manage to achieve the qualifications that
1216
many of your Lordships struggled so hard to attain. I was particularly taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who referred to the ITV Digital problem, and the possibility of many professional footballers in England and Wales either losing their jobs or having their status in life changed.
I noticed mention in some of yesterday's broadsheets of the idea that some of these footballers might be trained as PE instructors. Quite rightly. It is not that cold water was poured on the idea, but there would certainly be a need for them to gain qualifications in order to become fully fledged PE instructors. I wonder whether there is some merit in that idea. Perhaps those footballers, and other young people, might be encouraged to become what one might call "assistants". They already have some knowledge of what is required, but they could study to gain the qualifications by way of a form of sandwich course.
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, included "the promotion of health" in the title to her Motion. I look around the Chamber and wonder about the description "obese". Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to accompany those of us who belong to the Lords and Commons Ski Club in the first week of January to see who is obese, and who is reasonably healthy. My noble friend Lord Glentoran sustained a particularly severe injury, but I do not believe that it was as a result of his sport of bob-sleighing. I understand that it happened while he was water-skiing. Nevertheless, he has certainly retained his fitness.
For myself, I broke both a leg and an ankle in Switzerland, but that was not while I was in the company of the parliamentarians. I have dislocated a shoulder, broken a hand, and have now damaged the other shoulder. All those injuries were sustained while practising one sport in one location. When the noble Baroness said that sport promotes health, I do not necessarily think that she was pointing in my direction.
The noble Baroness talked extensively about "social inclusion", as, indeed, did many noble Lords. For my part, I must declare one interest. I hope that my noble friend Lord Monro will not hammer me, but I am honorary president of Forfar Athletic. We lost three/nil to his team—Queen of the South. I do not know what the average gate is for his club in Dumfries, but they brought 300 spectators to Forfar. However, when the team members were presented with the prize, perhaps my noble friend can tell me why they had a total of 6,200 spectators. I do not know whether my noble friend was among them; indeed, I am not too sure whether he paid to go in. I am also a patron of the Kirriemuir Boys' Club. But, in my tiny little town in Scotland, I am afraid that that is the one sport that they do not practise. There are five or six gentlemen in Kirriemuir who put day and night into that club, and I pay tribute to them tonight.
I realise that sport is a devolved matter, so my remarks may be a trifle distant from the subject. However, I am very glad that the noble Baroness gave us the chance to ask the Government what is going on

1217
in this area. Before I sit down, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, not to crow too much: they should just wait until 10 minutes to five on Saturday to see whether or not their beloved club does, indeed, win the title.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, speaking as the "cricketer to follow", I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Billingham for securing tonight's debate and for introducing it with such knowledge and passion. Like me, my noble friend is a sports fanatic. In the privacy of the women Peers' room, we have often sorted out the fortunes of England teams in a variety of sports. I shall avoid our discussions on rugby scrums.
I define "sport" as any physical activity that leads to improved fitness. Team games and competitive sport are important and inspire many qualities, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, observed, they are not the whole story. Some young people are put off physical activity—often for life—by being forced into team games for which they have little aptitude or interest. Attention to fitness, rather than winning or losing, seems to me to carry wider benefits for health and for social inclusion.
Today, coming in at the tail end of the debate after some prolific and stimulating batting, what else is there to do? The answer, I hope, is plenty, because my contribution will be about girls and women in sport. I shall look at the benefits to women of participation in sport, reasons why they may not participate, and how we might encourage them to do so. It is a fact that many girls feel excluded from physical activity, yet such activity would benefit their health, their confidence, and their positive inclusion in communities. I am grateful for help with my contribution to Sport England, the CCPR, especially its director Margaret Talbot, the Women's Sports Foundation, and the Youth Sports Trust.
What are the benefits of physical activity for women? First, for their health. Women are now at increased risk of stoke, heart attacks, and chronic bronchitis. Older women may be at risk from osteoporosis. Exercise decreases that risk. Younger women who take part in sports are less likely to smoke, take drugs, or become pregnant while in their teens. They are also, as are boys, more likely to achieve academically. This may be connected to the fact that taking part in sport increases self-esteem and involves women in community activity with peer support. Research shows that a physically active mother is a good indicator that the children will take part in sport.
Women surely have the human right to take part in sport, and achieve in sport; too often, they are put off sport or denied access to it. Participation in sport by women has increased over the past 15 years, but it is still less than men's participation. Women tend to drop out of sport on leaving school; working-class women participate less than middle-class women; and culture and religion also have an impact. It is estimated that only 19 per cent of Bangladeshi women take part in
1218
sport, compared to a national rate of 34 per cent. Girls and women are more likely to care for other members of the family, and, generally, have less personal time. Moreover, girls and women may have less money to pay for membership of gyms, or for other sports facilities.
There are too few positive role models for women in sport. The sports press is overwhelming male orientated. After the excellent FA Women's Cup Final, on Monday I saw a newspaper headline that read "Not Bad - for girls". Need I say more? Senior positions in sport are almost exclusively filled by males. If we could make change in those areas, perhaps it would influence women into feeling more included in sport.
So how can we encourage girls and women to participate more in sports? Matters are improving, with fast-growing enthusiasm for playing football and cricket among women and attending gyms and fitness classes. The Nike-Youth Trust "Girls in Sport" project researched initiatives that may further encourage girls' participation. One conclusion was that traditional forms of delivery of physical education and sport to young people were in need of urgent reform if girls were to participate more. For example, a mix of competitive and recreational activities, such as dance and aerobics, could be provided—an issue touched on by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
Girls in school are more enthusiastic if they are involved in deciding how the physical activity programme is designed. Displays in school of girls of all shapes and sizes involved in and enjoying physical activity are motivational. In one school I know, a fitness club before school encourages girls to take part willingly in activities.
Government departments such as the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should develop policies focused on women in sport. Schools could try to raise the profile of sport for girls by supporting a wide variety of opportunities for girls to take part in PE—perhaps by collaborating with local sports facilities such as gyms. Local provision, such as in youth clubs, could encourage a greater width of sports facilities for young women. School and youth provision could be tied in with health education programmes. National bodies, local authorities and coaching agencies could consider why women are poorly represented at senior management level. The media could be encouraged to report more on women's sport and increase coverage of good female role models. I should like to hear from the Minister whether any current or likely government initiatives focus specifically on women's sport.
Women's health is important. The social inclusion of women is important. Sport and physical activity can enhance both.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those debates that I have looked forward to with trepidation. A great deal of thought and expertise has

1219
been pumped into this debate. When one is trying to wind-up such a debate, one always finds that much of what one wanted to say has already been said—and probably said better. But to return to the basic premise of the debate—that social inclusion and health are benefits of sport—yes, they are. We have always known them to be. I congratulate the Government on starting to deal with the problems. This is one of the few areas in Parliament where party politics does not have that great a bite. There is a far higher degree of coherence across the parties because we are dealing with a real set of problems.
I think back to the great debate about whether competitive sport was bad. When I first heard that, I turned round and said, "Sport without competition is exercise". The reason why people do not universally exercise—we all know that it is good for us—is because it is fairly boring. That is the fact of the matter. Merely exercising is boring. If we ask any sportsman whether he actually enjoys doing the same exercise X number of times to keep himself fit, he will say no, he does not. It is dull. It is painful. It is boring. There is always something better on the TV. But he does it to get involved, because he gets a buzz out of sport. I do not know whether it is competition or co-operation—I cannot properly define it—but there is a certain buzz that people get out of sport that they do not get just from exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned cycling. I pull him up slightly on that point. Cycling may be an efficient, environmentally friendly and beneficial form of exercise, but it is not sport as I would define it. I accept that there is competitive cycling, but I think that he was talking about something else. Sport is a series of invented obstacles that we get a buzz from overcoming. That obstacle is often one's opponent. That is about as close to a definition as I can get.
Let us consider what the Government have done. They have started to tackle one of the major problems: the low level of school participation. That was an unforeseen knock-on effect of the Education Act 1988. It is as simple as that. It was not planned; it was just overlooked. Education establishments tend to concentrate on their primary business, which is education. Thus, it was not surprising that an education-driven Act unintentionally squeezed something else out. Once that happened, the knock-on effect throughout the entire sporting structure was radical. That initial contact was removed because teachers were counting their hours and not going out for X hours at lunchtime and after school.
There has never been a sufficient number of PE teachers to provide a broad spectrum of sport education. At best—and we should move much further towards this—they can provide a sampling board from which to push off in other directions. It is fair to say that the Government's school sports co-ordinators have started promisingly, but the jury is still out on whether they are sustainable or are driving people away from the qualified PE teacher base—whether they are doing more than taking steps in the right direction. I do not know whether they will be able to
1220
address the problem, but I suggest that we should seriously consider cutting away some unnecessary red tape by allowing teachers to qualify as PE coaches. Under the old system, someone who played for someone's third team in any given sport 20 years ago might well find himself in charge of a team of youngsters.
Almost all sports in this country have developed ways of teaching youngsters how to play the game—Rugby Union, cricket. Everyone has given it a great deal of thought. If we can encourage teachers to get properly qualified to teach young people, they should be rewarded in some way—preferably financially. I hope that the Minister will take that idea on board, because even with the best will in the world, school sports co-ordinators and PE staff cannot do the job because there are not enough of them. That is a simple matter of fact.
Of course, the great change that has come across the sporting world is the National Lottery. That goes to show that what government get wrong somewhere they get right somewhere else. We are now benefiting from the great achievements of the lottery, but it may already be entering a long dotage. The number of people taking part and the amount of money raised is dropping dramatically. The initial buzz is gone. Whether those who are running it can re-invigorate it we do not know, but it would seem that the best that they can do is to check the rate of decline.
Much work has been done to improve facilities. We will soon reach the point where we have the facilities that we can reasonably expect. That will always be an ongoing process—projects will fail, there will be replacements and new needs will arise—but we will soon have nearly all the infrastructure going.
A declining amount of money is available. Can the Minister give us a commitment that no more good causes will cut in to that decreasing cake—that the number of slices will remain as it is and that sport can be guaranteed to receive its current proportion of the income? That is important to allow sport to build. Will the National Lottery be allowed to start to take on the on-costs of sporting projects? That would mean that it would not have to come in with huge dollops of money for reimbursement and to try to ensure that it has new projects that meet new needs. In future, we shall need to consider refurbishment and general maintenance projects, even to the point of paying for staff. It is important. We have enjoyed success with—if you like—the sexy projects, and we are now heading towards smaller projects. We must consider providing grants for the maintenance of such projects, especially in areas that are least capable of providing facilities themselves. If we do not, if government—national or local—is not prepared to step in and support them, they run a high risk of collapse.
I must also raise the health issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned the connection between our earlier debate on health and this debate. In the area of sports medicine, we must look to the department to do its usual job of chasing others around to get more

1221
funding. At the moment, people are often frightened of playing sport because of injury or work commitments. Also, people do not know what to do if something goes wrong. Will the Government ensure that, if they are putting money into sporting projects, they tie in with that the development of sports medicine for recreational sportsmen?
The élite has been taken care of and has access to such medicine, but recreational sportsmen need to know that there will be sufficient numbers of physiotherapists attached to doctors' surgeries, that they will not have to wait for ever for an appointment and that the staff will he there to support them. There should also be greater emphasis on training GPs to deal with sports injuries.
Every sportsman of my age will have a story about going to the doctor and saying, "I've got such-and-such wrong with me. What should I do?", only for the doctor to say, without thinking, "Rest for two weeks". When the sportsman says, "Surely, that will just weaken muscles and shorten tendons", a look of panic crosses the doctor's face, and he says, "Rest for four weeks". If we can encourage spending on sports medicine in the National Health Service, we will help the sports bodies to do their job.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, was right to direct us to this subject today. Sport matters, and we must all work to ensure that no one is excluded from enjoying it on the grounds of disability, race, gender or background. As the Central Council for Physical Recreation pointed out in its briefing to your Lordships, we should also recognise that sport is not just a means of delivering wider government objectives, it is valuable in its own right. The contributions made by noble Lords made it clear that they hold true to that in their personal life.
I commend campaigns such as Sporting Equals for the work that they do throughout England to promote racial equality in sport and for the way in which they do it. Sport England funds the project and works through the CRE with the governing bodies of various sports and key national umbrella organisations. I wish them every success and invite the Minister to do the same tonight.
Sport is vitally important to the physical health of the nation. At its best, it is exciting, passionate and hugely enjoyable. It can help to improve our quality of life. As my noble friend Lord Lyell said, volunteers make a massive and invaluable contribution to the organisation of sport in the community. My noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that, although the Government made changes to the tax regime in the Budget this year, they failed to deliver on their commitment to give community amateur sports clubs, which are not charities, the 80 per cent mandatory business rate relief for which most of them have asked. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that there will be a second-stage move towards such a regime.
1222
Community spirit and national identity are fostered by sport. When the UK performs well, it boosts morale; we all want to "Bend It Like Beckham". To the individual, sport can offer a sense of personal accomplishment, as well as health benefits. It teaches people how to win and—certainly for me—how to lose, without, it is to be hoped, losing one's temper. It can improve cognitive skills such as literacy and numeracy. For society as a whole, sport can help to reduce the level of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is involved in valuable work in that regard. It can help to channel aggression and play an important role in diminishing social and ethnic barriers. Sport can also provide delinquent youngsters with a welcome diversion and can act as a deterrent to the use of illegal drugs, something that Sport England's Positive Futures scheme aims to address.
Sport also plays a part in encouraging the economic regeneration of local communities. We should pay tribute to local authorities, which play a major role in providing and delivering sport. They make available to their communities about 1,200 swimming centres and 1,500 sports centres and maintain about 5,000 parks, playing fields, open spaces and pitches for sports-related activities. Those facilities provide communities with a healthy social focal point.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan made a series of proposals to the Minister on how the Government could tackle social exclusion at local government level. I listened carefully to his list, and I thought that it was an innovative and practical list. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those proposals.
Most of us first experience sport at school.It is vital that children are introduced to sport and PE at an early age. Teaching children to play sport is essential to a rounded education. I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said about the value of competitive sport. I agree entirely with him. Is the Minister aware of the valuable work done by the British Schools Tennis Association in fostering, competitive sport? It runs a business-sponsored, nationwide programme of school competitions, involving about 33,000 children between the ages of nine and 15 in team events each year. That is a valuable contribution. The undermining of competitive sports in schools has had a detrimental effect on the standard of school sport. Such sports teach students values such as teamwork, leadership, loyalty, courage, respect and patience. We neglect them at our peril.
Just as sport teaches children life skills, it helps to keep them healthy. Noble Lords have given persuasive evidence of the problems that ensue when children are introduced to obesity, rather than sport. Research by the Leeds Community and Mental Health Trust showed that the number of obese children had reached record levels and that, by the age of 11, one third of our children are overweight and one fifth of boys are obese. As noble Lords have said, that should he little surprise, given that one third of primary schools have reduced the time for sport in the past year and children spend twice as much time watching television or playing computer games as they do exercising or

1223
playing sport. Indeed, the annual sales turnover for computer games exceeds that the film industry in this country.
Research conducted by the University of Exeter has shown that most 11 to 16 year-olds get fewer than 20 minutes of meaningful physical activity a week. The number of PE specialists in training has dropped by about one third in the past three years. Primary school teachers may receive as little as 10 hours of initial PE training in four years at teaching training college. We must address those problems.
The issue of girls in sport was raised capably, as always—that sounds condescending, but it is not meant to be—by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. The noble Baroness knows all about the subject; I know only a little. Research has suggested that participation levels in women's and girls' sport are disproportionately low. It is true that they participate in greater numbers than before, but still they do not do so as often as men. The Conservative Party recognises the existence of gender inequality in sport. I note that the next world conference on women in sport will be held in Canada next week, from 16th to 19th May. Can the Minister tell us which Ministers will attend the conference? What are their precise objectives? How will they report directly to this House on progress in Canada?
The Conservative Party endorses the national action plan for women's and girls' sport and physical activity, launched by the Women's Sports Foundation in conjunction with Sport England. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government have done to encourage sporting bodies to sign up to the National Action Plan and make a determined effort to put them into practice?
My noble friend Lord Glentoran pointed out how important it is for the Government to recognise the immense and positive contribution which sport brings to communities across the country, ensuring that the requirements of sport are properly taken into account across the whole spectrum of policy and funding decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, reminded us that the Government have not yet acted on the recommendation of the Health Select Committee of another place in ensuring that there is a joint special adviser shared between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health. When do the Government intend to take up that recommendation—without increasing the overall number of special advisers since this Government have increased those numbers vastly over the past six years already?
The same report highlighted evidence to show that only 11 per cent of general practitioners recognise government guidelines on the amount of physical activity to be undertaken by adults. What measures are being taken by the Government to make the health case for physical activity, including sport, to GPs and health professionals?
1224
Finally, Peers have made it clear today that there is much that the Government can do to ensure that sport plays its full part in promoting health and social inclusion. So far the Government have talked a good game, but they have not delivered a result. No doubt we shall return to the subject to press the Government for a progress report. I must say that, unlike Wembley, I shall not accept the lack of a final date on this. There has to be a result.
Perhaps we shall even press the Minister for a personal progress report if she takes up the challenge of her noble friend Lord Haskel to take up cycling. Coming from the family that used to manufacture Anelay cycles into the middle of the last century, I look forward to hearing a positive conclusion that she has taken it up.
7.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, from all that we have heard today, it is clear that there are a great many in your Lordships' House, and beyond, who feel truly passionately about sport—including cycling. Although I am in favour of cycling, whenever I take to a bike the chain comes off. Therefore, I am going to stick to valley walks and the tennis court and—dare I say on such an auspicious day—supporting the Arsenal football club.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Billingham for raising an issue which has generated such an interesting debate. We have had many expert speakers, including two former Ministers of Sport. I am also grateful for all the ideas that have been put forward.
As my noble friend said, there is increasing concern about our "couch potato" culture and the rising level of obesity in our population. The statistics are indeed shocking. We know that physical activity levels, as well as dietary factors, are significant determinants of body mass. We know that levels of activity have a significant impact on health. Figures from the United States show that lifetime healthcare costs are 30 per cent lower for the physically active than for sedentary people. That is a statistic we should all take seriously in how we run our own lives.
I agree with my noble friends Lady Billingham and Lord Pendry and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there is a very clear role for sport in encouraging people to be more active. In this country, compared with others in the European Union, there is certainly a great deal of scope for this. The average percentage of adults who regularly participate in sport in the UK is only 46 per cent, as against between 60 and 70 per cent in Scandinavian countries. We also need to target our efforts. Non-participation rates are higher among ethnic minorities and women where the prevalence of obesity and associated morbidities is growing fastest.
The Government are heeding those indicators. My department is working closely with the departments of health and education and skills to use sport to encourage participation in active recreation. For children and young people we are building a national network of 1,000 school sport co-ordinators to

1225
encourage sport in schools, out of school hours and beyond schools through links with sports clubs. They are 'lasing; with healthy schools co-ordinators to ensure that the message about the impact of active lifestyles on long-term health is part of a broader preventive healthcare strategy.
Adults are harder to reach. For those at risk from sedentary lifestyles we need to develop new approaches. In partnership with the Department of Health and Sport England, DCMS will pilot a Leisure Credit initiative to offer exercise on prescription for targeted adults in some of our most disadvantaged areas. I hope that the proposed scheme will empower the user rather than just subsidising the provider, as in the past. We will provide more details of that scheme soon.
My noble friends Lady Billingham and Lord Hardy of Wath raised a second area of concern—that of the rising tide of street crime committed by young people. The Prime Minister has pledged to bring street crime under control in the 10 police areas responsible for 80 per cent of such offences. That will require action not only within the criminal justice system but also by departments, including my own.
As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, we are working with the Department for Education and Skills and the Youth Justice Board to establish a coordinated preventive programme of summer and longer-term activities in the target areas. The Government accept what has been said in the debate. Sport can help engage disaffected young people and help them find their way into a more constructive use of their leisure time.
Evidence from the Summer Splash schemes, which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is encouraging. For example, in areas where schemes were run in the year 2000, the total crime rate fell by 6 per cent, compared with a national rise of just under 4 per cent. Criminal damage fell by 14 per cent, against a national rise of 8 per cent. Domestic burglary fell by 26.6 per cent. The national fall was only 8 per cent. The criticism commonly levelled at such schemes is that they are merely diversionary. They channel energies which might otherwise go into criminal activity but fail to address the underlying attitudes which lead to bad behaviour. Can sport do both? Evidence to show that it can is beginning to emerge. Where sustained sport-based programmes are and have clear goals, they can achieve remarkable results. For example, there has been a 75 per cent reduction in arrests and offences of young people involved through the Youth Inclusion programme in the Plymouth Positive Futures project. The Government will continue investing in long-term schemes like that and will use sport to engage hard to reach young offenders. We shall learn lessons from longer-term evaluations.
Those health and community safety issues are formidable problems which require a comprehensive, sustained and intelligent approach. While it is right to explore the potential of sport to bring about change for the good, it is important to be realistic. While sport can be part of the answer to individual and social
1226
malaise, sport in itself is no Holy Grail. I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that.
Sport can provide role models. It can inspire; it can provide healthy and enjoyable exercise and social contacts. It can teach young people about team working and the importance of rules. Involvement in sport, in the right environment, can indeed be a powerful tool for the transformation of individual lives and of communities.
Sport will need help to achieve all that potential. I want to refute what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran; that funding for sport is not part of our agenda. The Government are investing in sport at a level never previously seen in this country. Perhaps I should set that out for him and for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who also asked about it.
Exchequer funding for sport in the current year is £83.7 million rising to £135 million next year. That represents an increase of £80 million over the figure for 1996—97. Many speakers mentioned the lottery. Since 1997, almost £1.5 billion has been awarded in lottery grants for community sports facilities and acute athletes under the world class programme. In addition, £31.5 million from the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme is enhancing playing fields and play areas. During the current spending round, £73 million is being invested in specialist sports colleges by the DfES. And investment in school sports facilities through the New Opportunities Fund and Space for Sport and Arts amounts to £855 million. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all her work in the chair of the New Opportunities Fund. That amounts to a package of more than £2 billion for sport.
Last month, the Government recognised that amateur sports clubs, rooted in local communities, need more support. That help is now forthcoming and I am grateful for support for that move from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
In April, the Minister for Sport announced that the majority of amateur clubs will now be able to apply for charitable status. The potential benefits run into tens of millions of pounds. Through that new status, clubs will gain the mandatory 80 per cent relief from business rates; tax exemption for fundraising income; and payroll giving, Giftaid and other tax reliefs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, claimed, of course clubs will need help in understanding the changes. A regional Sport England helpline will be available to help them make the most of the new tax benefits very shortly. I know that the Charity Commission is aware of the need to be helpful in that respect.
In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, pointed out, the Chancellor announced a package of tax benefits in the Budget for clubs which are unable to benefit from charitable status. We will keep the effectiveness of those arrangements under review, including the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.

1227
An extra boost for clubs was also announced by the Chancellor in the form of £20 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund for sport. Clubs will also benefit from the Government's plans for coaching and volunteering. Coaches play a key role in motivating competitors and improving their skills. That applies to the school playground and the local playing field as well as to major international events.
We need to develop and support coaches more. We also need to encourage more people to enter the profession and to ensure that good coaching is available at every level from the grass roots to the top. At the grassroots level, action is already underway. The Come into Coaching campaign is a national recruitment drive in partnership with the BBC to encourage parents and others to enter coaching in local schools and clubs. Some of those people will be paid as sessional coaches. Others will be volunteers.
My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath mentioned volunteers. It is estimated that our 110,000 amateur sports clubs are sustained by an army of more than 1.5 million volunteers. Those dedicated people range from skilled coaches to the mothers who wash bags full of muddy kit for junior teams. All of them give their services week after week and we must acknowledge the work that they do.
One of the most inspiring elements of preparations for the Commonwealth Games is the Millennium Volunteers programme. My department will continue to lead in advocating the value of volunteering in sport. And the benefits will spread beyond our schools. Many will progress to higher awards and will be placed in community sports clubs. Alongside them, adults will also have the opportunity to gain awards and recognition for the volunteering they already do.
To underpin that work, Sport England will develop a comprehensive volunteering database to match local placement opportunities to the experience and qualifications of volunteers.
A key issue for clubs and for the public is access to sports facilities and in particular playing fields. The noble Lords, Lord Monro of Langholm, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned the concern felt about the loss of school playing fields. While there is no room for complacency, the picture is nowhere near as black as is sometimes painted. The Government have dramatically reduced the overall number of sales of school playing fields by introducing legislative changes and checks to the planning system. Controls set up to stem the flow are now beginning to bite.
In response to particular questions raised about that issue, Sport England has followed up all the planning applications affecting playing fields to which it has objected as a statutory consultee. We expect soon to be able to publish an authoritative set of figures agreed with the National Playing Fields Association to put an end to the confusion over data to which the noble Lord, Lord Monro, alluded. There is more that I could
1228
say about that issue, but I fear that I shall run out of time. I want to move on to the issue of trying to improve what we do for school sports.
First, £201 million Sport England lottery funding has been awarded to school sports facilities as well as funding from the Department for Education and Skills and funding through Space for Sport and Arts. All facilities which are funded through those programmes must also open their doors to local people out of school hours to benefit community health and promote social inclusion. We know that professional white males are four times as likely to participate in regular activity than working-class women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. That discrepancy is being addressed. Forty-three of the 45 county-based sports partnerships have worked out equity policies with clear targets for engaging women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in sport.
In order to extend the benefits of participation beyond the traditional social boundaries, we are channelling sports development funding into areas of multiple deprivation. Sport England's community capital programme is supporting projects which encourage participation by groups less likely to be regularly involved in sport and active recreation.
School is where most children are introduced to sport. At school, pupils either develop a lifelong love of sport or an equally lifelong aversion to it. As my noble friend Lady Billingham pointed out, school sport declined throughout the 1980s and 1990s. However, the message we are now trying to get across is that time spent on PE and sport does not detract from academic achievement. Indeed, the opposite is true. My noble friend also mentioned the specialist sports colleges where GCSE results have improved, as they have in other specialist schools. Longitudinal studies currently being undertaken further support the improvements being brought about in the achievements of their pupils.
For a whole variety of reasons, including the improvements that I have just mentioned, the Prime Minister is committed to embedding sport at the heart of school life. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, to ensure that that is brought about, both the DCMS and the DIES have agreed a detailed project delivery plan which aims to improve the quality of PE and sport in schools. The project aims to ensure that all pupils can benefit from a minimum of two hours per week of high-quality PE and school sport; to encourage schools to foster links with sports clubs; to provide a wider range of opportunities and to encourage school leavers to remain involved in sport. Ultimately, the project seeks to increase the number of children enjoying playing and participating in sports and related recreational activities.
To achieve that transformation of school sport, we are planning an expansion of the existing infrastructure of sport co-ordinator partnerships and primary link schools centred on specialist sports colleges. Once the delivery contract targets have been agreed, they will be made public. However, I can

1229
assure noble Lords that they will be ambitious. We believe that our plans for school sports provision will have a long-term impact on sporting and educational achievement, the health of the nation and on the social fabric of our communities.
A number of specific questions were raised during the course of the debate to which I shall not have time to respond in detail now. I shall write to noble Lords with answers to those questions. Perhaps I may conclude by saying that many of us count participation in or spectating sport as one of the great pleasures of life. I certainly do so. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that sport can help to achieve much wider goals for society and for individuals. Sport has a magnetism that is capable of drawing out the best in some of our most disaffected and disadvantaged people. The Government are determined to focus that power sensitively and effectively.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, this is the first debate that l have initiated since becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. It has been a most stimulating experience. Your Lordships' House is packed with so much expertise—a galaxy of stars if ever I saw one. Today's debate has been positive, creative and dynamic with every contributor giving remarkable insights. I hope that the debate will he widely read and acknowledged and that many of the aspirations of noble Lords will become reality. I believe that we have witnessed genuine consensus on the value of sport to our society. Let us retain that united front and encourage the Government to place sport even higher on their agenda so that it can play its key role in ensuring a healthier and more inclusive society.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975]:
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out "25" and insert "2000"
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself. It seeks to question how far my noble
1230
friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester wants to go in bringing the law into the affairs of small and medium-sized private clubs and associations. As I did on Second Reading, perhaps I may declare an interest as a member of the Reform Club, which admits men and women members on equal terms, and as a member of the Garrick Club, whose members consist of men only.
The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that where a club offers membership or associate membership to women, it must do so on equal terms with men. Women must not be excluded from certain parts of the club or any facilities that are available to men, or from taking part in the governance of the club. The same rules would apply to clubs that are basically or primarily women's clubs, but which offer some sort of membership to men.
In the debate on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Faulkner made it clear that the Bill, through new Clause 29B, would allow for the continuance of single-sex clubs such as the Garrick Club or Women's Institutes. In the Second Reading debate, many noble Lords pointed out that where in golf clubs, working men's clubs and so forth, clubs admit women as members but do so only on unequal terms, there is often a strong feeling of resentment among the women members, a feeling of injustice and, sometimes, one of humiliation. Over recent years, just as there have been considerable changes in social behaviour in society generally, so there have been moves towards greater equality in the running and membership of private clubs and associations. However, the Bill's proponents say that those changes have not gone far enough and that a law is now necessary to give those changes a necessary further push.
I believe that there is a big question mark over how far the law should intervene to enforce equality of treatment between the sexes. Freedom of association is one of the great freedoms for which many have fought, both literally and metaphorically, over centuries. It is the freedom to associate for any legitimate purpose with like-minded people with whom one wishes to associate, to the exclusion of others. Clubs are private associations (with or without their own premises) which people establish, run, and then invite and elect others to join. Given that, I believe that a very strong case indeed has to be made before the law should intrude in order to enforce equal association between men and women.
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to tease out how far my noble friend Lord Faulkner will be prepared to go in pushing the law into the private domain. Let us contrast certain scenarios. In one particular geographical area, A, there is only one golf club. No publicly-owned golf club is available for miles around. If there was such a club, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 would already apply, requiring men and women to be treated at all limes on equal terms. But the golf club in area A is, in effect, a monopoly supplier of golfing services. Not surprisingly, it has several thousand members and a huge waiting list. I suggest that perhaps it ought to be treated like a public supplier of services to the public,

1231
or a section of the public; namely, people who want to play golf. Perhaps it ought to be bound by the Sex Discrimination Act.
But let me take another scenario. In town B, some 30 or 40 men comprise the local darts team. They meet regularly in various pubs and village halls to play against similar darts teams. Recently, a number of women have become interested in playing darts and now women have been elected as associate members. They are welcome to join in and to play on ladies' evenings. They are welcome only on those evenings, because on other evenings the men wish to have a bibulous evening playing darts with men only.
In town C there is a university wives club comprising several hundred members who are thinking of allowing into membership—but not with full rights—men who are spouses of local female university staff. Apparently the women like some of their social occasions to be women only nights out. Does my noble friend Lord Faulkner really think that there is an overriding justification for the law to intervene in these small or medium scale social activities in towns B and C?
Why should not people associate with others for social purposes in ways that they choose, mixing the sexes to the extent that they choose? As it stands, the Bill will make unlawful all of these kinds of restrictions on membership that attach to one sex only whenever the total numbers in the club are 25 or more. How can that be justified?
My noble friend Lord Faulkner may also wish to consider that if the Bill becomes law those male or female clubs that have begun to admit, or started out on the road of admitting, the opposite sex to some kind of membership might decide to go back to square one and revert to exclusive male or female membership so as to avoid the effect of new Section 29A. Would my noble friend Lord Faulkner regard that as progress? I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I have added my name to the amendment. I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In doing so, I offer my thanks to him. He spotted that the Bill may have slightly wider implications than its promoters and many noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading thought. I was somewhat remiss not to speak at Second Reading. I may have to say a few words at this stage, without making a Second Reading speech—I have no intention of making a Second Reading speech—to set out my position on the Bill.
Before I do so, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I presume will be speaking for the Government on the Bill—her noble friend Lady Farrington spoke on the previous occasion—whether she can help on this issue. On 13th March, the day of the Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Blatch put down a Question for Written Answer asking Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to bring in a Bill to ban all clubs from
1232
excluding female membership. That Question was put down on 13th March and I gather from the Companion that it is recommended that the Government normally answer Questions within a fortnight of them being put down. One would therefore have hoped that the Question would have been answered by 27th March. As far as I am aware, the Question has not yet been answered.
It seems to be a fairly straightforward Question. It was dealt with to some extent by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, at Second Reading when she said:
"The Government have made no criticism of genuine"—
I stress the word "genuine"—
"single-sex clubs".
She then went on to discuss what she thought were single-sex clubs, which seemed to include the Women's Institute, the Girl Guides or Business and Professional Women UK. She went on to state:
"Nor would one expect to hear complaints about support groups for male single parents or for men who are the primary carers of pre-school children within a family".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col. 934.]
She did not mention any other kinds of clubs. I would be interested to know what are "genuine single-sex clubs". Perhaps the noble Baroness will address that issue and tell the Committee when the Question put down on 13th March is likely to be answered.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I declare an interest. I am a member of two clubs in St James's, one of which, I understand, possibly will be affected and the other possibly not. It depends very much on the interpretation of the Bill. That is a difficult matter which we will discuss when we get to later amendments or at a later stage of the Bill.
Interpretation is very important. I sat down with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and another, equally eminent, QC. We discussed the Bill for an hour or more. As I understood it, the views of those two eminent lawyers seemed to change during the course of that hour, then changed back and then changed again. If eminent Silks such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and his colleague could change their views, I suspect that the whole Bill will need to be looked at further.
As I said, I am currently a member of two clubs in St James's. I was also a member of the Carlton Club, which was mentioned on a number of occasions at Second Reading. I was an honorary member of the Carlton during my time as Chief Whip. I understand that as I am no longer Chief Whip I am no longer an honorary member of that club. But in my time as a member of the Carlton I took part in the vote as to whether or not women should become members. I can assist the Committee by saying that I voted for women to become members, as did the then Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr William Hague. Sadly, we were unsuccessful. But that is a matter for the Carlton Club and the Conservative Party. It is not a matter on which legislation should necessarily impinge.
I should make it clear that I have no terribly strong views about whether any club of which I am a member should or should not admit women, or whether it

1233
should discriminate on the grounds of what is now called "gender" but which the Bill still seems to refer to as "sex". However, I do have strong views about being told what to do by other people or by Parliament on matters that are not necessarily matters in which Parliament or the state should involve themselves.
Having said that that should apply to clubs of which I am a member, it should also apply to golf clubs, with the possible distinction of the kind of golf club referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, which is the only club in an isolated area and the only way that one could play golf is by being a member of that club. But I do not have strong views about golf clubs, working men's clubs and so on. I believe it is a matter for private associations to decide what their membership should be—and only for those private associations.
Perhaps I may give a small analogy. I seem to remember being told years ago that one should try absolutely everything except incest and morris dancing. Quite rightly, we have laws against incest, but we can leave people to decide for themselves what they wish to do about morris dancing. I have not yet taken up morris dancing—I have no intention of doing so—hut it is not a matter on which we need to legislate.
For those reasons the Bill is a deeply illiberal measure. I hope that its creators will think again, very carefully, before taking it any further.
As to the amendment itself, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has set out very clearly what we wish to know from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. Exactly what kind of club is he trying to get at? He has arbitrarily chosen a limit of 25; the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has, quite rightly, suggested another figure. After discussions, we chose our figure—again quite arbitrarily—of 2,000. Where does one draw the line? At what stage does a genuinely private club become so large that it becomes something public in which the state or Parliament ought to intervene? For myself, even 2,000 may not be the right figure and we may need to come back to it at a later stage.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, this is a probing amendment. I hope that when he comes to respond to it the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will let us know why he proposes a limit of 25. If, in the light of the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, he considers that the figure of 25 is too small, will he consider raising that limit to make the Bill marginally less pernicious than it is at the moment?
Lord Monson: I support the amendment, moved most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. First, I declare a non-interest. As it happens, I do not belong to any of the kinds of clubs against which the Bill is aimed. I am a member of a couple of small dining clubs which meet once a year and whose dinners I attend perhaps two years out three at most. But these clubs are not the subject of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I believe that the Bill is illiberal in the true sense of the word, and that it is a threat to freedom of choice, freedom of contract and freedom of association. I would have said as much
1234
at Second Reading, but there is a limit to the number of evenings one is prepared to sacrifice in discussion of Private Members' Bills.
A club is not a public place; it is a private place. Existing members should, therefore, have the right to be as perverse and eccentric as they like in the rules that they apply. If people do not like those rules—and I fully understand why quite a few do not; although, equally, quite a few women members, I understand, are happy with the status quo, especially if it means substantially reduced subscriptions—they have a simple remedy: to resign forthwith and go elsewhere, or possibly start up a club more to their liking. This amendment would at least reduce the scope and impact of the Bill, and I support it for that reason.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of this moderate Bill, but I am delighted now to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on having introduced it and to add my support to the great support given by the many noble Lords who have spoken in its favour. I shall make only one speech: I shall speak to the first three amendments, all standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley, so that Members of the Committee do not have to hear me again and again.
I begin by declaring my interest. I am a member of the RAC, which admits members of both sexes, but some of whose activities may be affected by the Bill if it becomes law. I refer, for example, to the exclusion of women members from using overnight accommodation or providing equal access to the Turkish baths in the club. Men and women are members of the RAC but there are still those elements of the past.
I have other antecedents which I shall declare presently, including the fact that I was an architect of the Sex Discrimination Act and of the Race Relations Act, both of which—if the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forgive my saying so—were greeted with similar arguments: in respect, for example, of the small employers' exemption and of the fact that we outlawed colour bars in clubs of more than 25 members. I have heard those arguments for 30 years and I am slightly surprised to be hearing them from the noble Lord. I remember, when I was younger, reading some of the great works that he wrote, including .The Consumer, Society and the Law, which we regarded as a most progressive and reforming work. However, I fully respect the view that he and others have expressed.
Since the beginning of the year, the Equal Opportunities Commission has received some 70 complaints about sex discrimination in private clubs, many of them relating to the practices of golf clubs. I should also mention that l am a member of a golf club in Ireland which cannot any longer, I am glad to say, discriminate against women because the Irish Government would cut off funds. That has had a tonic effect on the other side of the Irish Sea.
The EOC's consultation found overwhelming support among the public for a measure on the lines of this Bill. One of those who responded to the

1235
consultation commented that she had entered a business golf day to discover that the organisers had planned for registration to take place in the men-only lounge. She was not allowed to register, but had to shout her details from the doorway.
Like many Members of this House, for many years I was also a member of an all-male London social club, which I greatly enjoyed; namely, the Garrick Club, which excludes women from its membership, although not as guests of members. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, revealed at Second Reading, one day when she and I lunched together at the Garrick we naughtily protested against the archaic rule that forbade women from walking up the main staircase by climbing the stairs together without requiring the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to use the back stairs and to meet me on the landing above. Together with others, I tried to change the club's rules by opening membership to both sexes.
The Garrick Club is not only a private social club; it is a social club for members of the literary, theatrical and legal professions: writers, actors, judges and lawyers—distinguished lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It seemed to the minority of reformers to be unfair and absurd to bar from membership the likes of Dame Antonia Byatt, Dame Judi Dench, and Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss solely because of their gender.
Among the judges and lawyers belonging to the Garrick Club there was overwhelming support for the removal of the gender bar. Only one disagreed. But our attempt to change the rule was rejected by the great majority of the membership as a whole, by no means all of whom were misogynists or male chauvinists. I resigned, not because of some grand principle but simply because I no longer felt comfortable in a club whose membership had voted in that way. I should not dream of criticising those who feel happy to remain as members, enjoying their freedom of association, and to exclude the other sex from membership.
When he spoke in general opposition to the Bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, suggested that legislation was unnecessary because so-called gentlemen's clubs had a "come a long way over the past 20 or 30 years". That is true of some of them, but I am not aware that many, including the Garrick, have modified their rules or practices since I resigned more than a decade ago, although I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, if invited by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, could now walk up the main staircase.
The Equal Opportunities Commission found, on the basis of the evidence obtained in the consultation, that there had been "very little voluntary change" and that there are a,
"variety of discriminatory rules and arrangements which seek to perpetuate stereotypical images of men and women; and which limit women's participation in club activities in a number of ways".
The Bill is much less far-reaching than, for example, the Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance, which for several years has forbidden sex discrimination
1236
against non-members as well as members of almost all clubs—there is not even a 25 member cut-off. The Bill is also much less far-reaching than New York City's human rights law, which, since 1984, has forbidden sex discrimination in any club with more than 400 members that provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment, directly or indirectly, from or on behalf of non-members for the furtherance of trade or business—rather as the Garrick Club used to take money, for example, from my chambers through me to organise a Christmas party for chambers as part of its important revenue.
For those who say that the New York measure is a violation of fundamental rights, I point out that, in the land of liberty itself, the United States, it was unanimously upheld by the American Supreme Court in 1988 as being entirely proper under the constitution of the United States. Interestingly, the preamble to that New York law explains that,
"one barrier to the advancement of women and minorities in the business and professional life of the city of New York is the discriminatory practices of certain membership organisations where business deals are often made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes, employment and professional advancement are formed".
The Bill before the Committee is not intended to forbid single-sex clubs, but to provide that clubs whose membership is open to both sexes must treat applicants and members equally without sex discrimination; and that clubs that admit women as well as men as guests must again treat them equally without sex discrimination.
In my view the drafting of proposed new Section 29B is imperfect. It is rather ambiguous, and I am sure that that is what has led to some agitation in this Chamber. It may well call for clarification at a later stage to make it absolutely clear that a club like the Garrick is not caught in terms of membership by this Bill.
If the probing amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has fairly put forward for debate were to be pressed and accepted, women would continue to face sex discrimination as guests—and not only as guests—in medium-sized and small clubs, whether a club had male and female members or only members of one sex. I find it difficult to understand the justification for perpetuating sex discrimination against, for example, a woman who comes to the Garrick with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, but who cannot go up the same staircase, if that was the rule, or cannot have a drink with him at the bar at the top of the stairs. The same applies to a woman golfer who is a guest at a golf club, but cannot enjoy the club's facilities together with her host.
I greatly cherish personal privacy. Objections on those grounds can be dealt with by amending the Bill along the lines of the exemption already in the Sex Discrimination Act for other bodies. I have tried to do that in amendments that we shall come to later. They are not ideal amendments, but they are an attempt to deal with personal privacy.

1237
I very much hope that noble Lords will not divide the Committee and will not press the amendments in the light of the debate.
I shall say a word or two about some of the arguments that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley. Equality has to be balanced with liberty. That is not an issue. It has to respect freedom of association and personal privacy. That is not an issue. The question is where the line should be drawn. What exceptions are needed to respect those other important rights and interests? The Bill does not interfere unduly with freedom of association. If it is amended, it will not interfere unduly with personal privacy.
The members of single-sex clubs can enjoy their freedom of association if they wish by maintaining them as exclusive clubs. However, if they choose—and this is their choice as members—to admit members or guests of both sexes, the Bill says that, having made that choice, they should do so on equal terms. If, on the other hand, they choose to revert to being exclusive all-male preserves, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated, that is their right.
However, I do not understand how it can be right to distinguish between working men's clubs, which have more than 1 million members throughout the country, and clubs such as Brooks's, the Garrick or any other social club, which in form are exactly the same and are regulated as private clubs. I can see no argument, except a class-based one, for the view that it is impermissible for working men's clubs or golf clubs to discriminate against women or black people, but it is permissible for Pall Mall social clubs to do so. I see no practical distinction between the two. The only justification is that Members of this House do not belong to working men's clubs, but they belong to Pall Mall social clubs. To that extent, we are self-interested. That is not a justification for the distinction.
As long as we do not legislate to prohibit virtually all single-sex clubs, as happened in Hong Kong, we are respecting the other fundamental rights that need to be respected and maintaining a fair balance. In doing so, we are advancing the position of women as well as men. As someone who joined an all-male set of chambers, I reassure those who belong to all-male clubs that it is ever so much more enjoyable when both sexes are members on equal terms than when we go on as our fathers and grandfathers did.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord accept that the Irish Government's withdrawal of financial support to golf clubs that discriminate against women, to which he referred, is not unreasonable? It is no doubt reasonable to exert financial pressure on people who discriminate, but the Bill is much more draconian than that, by imposing an outright ban.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have tried to explain that the Bill does not impose an outright ban. Properly drafted, it will leave untouched the right of private member's clubs to be all male or all female. The only
1238
way in which it intrudes is by saying that if a club chooses to admit members of the other sex, as the RAC does, for example, or to admit guests of the other sex, they must be treated equally, subject to safeguards for matters such as personal privacy.
Lord Moynihan: In speaking to the amendment. I wish to put down a marker that I intend to ensure that a potential flaw in the Bill is addressed on Report. I participated in this afternoon's debate on sport, but I regret that I cannot be with your Lordships throughout this Committee stage, for which I have already apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and for which I sincerely apologise to the Committee.
The amendment covers the point that I wish to make only for clubs with a membership of fewer than 2,000. That depends on the success of my noble friend Lord Henley and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. As I read it, many sports clubs, such as the London Rowing Club, of which I am a member, effectively face the prospect of closure if the legislation as drafted is enacted in the near future. That is not because the club currently objects or has in the past objected to women's membership—on the contrary, at a previous AGM the membership passed a resolution to move that successful, outstanding historic club in the desired direction on women's membership. However, voluntary clubs committed to building necessary and new state of the art facilities, many of which already have a class of women's membership but wish to move to the ideal and clearly defined principles set out in the Bill, face the problem of having to raise substantial funds, agree designs within budgets and implement the necessary development plan. All that takes time, which is not permitted on the face of the Bill. If the Bill is to be enacted, I simply ask noble Lords to recognise the importance of the issue when it is raised on Report. The issue will be all the more serious if the amendment is not carried. We need delays in implementation built into the Bill if it is to proceed further.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Lord aware that Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act contains an exception in relation to sport, which would cover the London Rowing Club in any event? I used to row from the London Rowing Club at school, so I know it well. Nothing in the Bill will compel the London Rowing Club to admit women members.
Lord Moynihan: I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to Section 44 of that Act, which I have yet to read and consider. The noble Lord has clearly benefited from his many years of rowing from that great club on the Thames. If he is right, the provision overcomes the concern held by many clubs in the circumstances that the London Rowing Club currently faces. I shall study that section carefully. If I agree with the noble Lord on the issue, it will not be necessary to raise it in further proceedlings on the Bill. I hope that he will allow me to reserve judgment on the issue until I have clarified it further, but I hope that he is right.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I regard this as a very mild and encouraging Bill. The amendment would

1239
exclude almost all the clubs at which the Bill is aimed. I am reliably informed that it will encourage clubs such as the Garrick to move rather quickly to a more liberal approach. Having said that, as long as they allowed the same facilities to men and women guests, there would be no problem.
What I like about the Bill is that it makes specific provision for those clubs that have two levels of membership. That is the aspect that needs attention. We have heard that the Equal Opportunities Commission has regularly received—and I know continues to receive—complaints from women with regard to the discrimination they experience at the hands of golf clubs and others.
All that is being asked in the Bill is that both sexes should be treated the same so that if you are willing to be an associate member and be prevented playing golf on a Saturday because it is assumed that you are at home doing nothing all week and able to be on the golf course then, whether male or female, you may opt to apply for the same associate membership. It is up to you, whether male or female, to apply for that associate membership. That is one aspect of what in today's world continues to be a completely unjustifiable use of the exemption that some people believe exists for club activities.
It is particularly sad that having successfully passed the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 which allows political parties to use their discretion to take whatever form of positive action they feel is appropriate to encourage more women to be adopted as parliamentary candidates, nevertheless the Conservative Carlton Club—I argue that this is where the private and the public aspects cross over—is still very much living in the Dark Ages; and it cannot be the only one. That is despite the valiant efforts of the leader of that party and his principled personal refusal to become a club member until it changes its rules to allow equal membership for men and women.
I refer to a female associate member who clearly gave valuable service on that club's political committee and was its deputy chairman. By virtue of her office she was also a member of the Carlton Club's general committee. I believe that she had greater political ambitions, perhaps to become a Member of Parliament. She attended five monthly meetings of the general committee without challenge. Apparently, the general committee is rather grander than the political committee. However, some three weeks ago she was challenged because, apparently, no woman, however capable—and she clearly was capable—is allowed to sit on that all-powerful committee. She was unanimously voted off the committee. What kind of message does that send out to aspiring young women and, indeed, men who want to be part of our democratic process in the modern world in which we live?
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for whom I have, and always have had, enormous respect, will not press his amendment. As I said earlier, it would exempt practically all the clubs that we are considering. The Bill is moderate to a degree and I
1240
hope that it will persuade some clubs to move rather more quickly to adopt a more liberal and modern attitude towards the lives that men and women live.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: It is rare for me to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and it gives me no pleasure at all to do so. However, I rise to support the amendment which the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley, have tabled. I suppose that we should all declare the interest of membership; but perhaps the fact of leaving membership is at least as much of an interest as being a member. I have the same club membership as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and therefore noble Lords will not be surprised at my view. That view is a simple one and I shall not require more than two or three sentences to explain it. It is important that we draw a line up to which we legislate and beyond which we do not legislate. It is crucial that we do not appear to the public to spend our time legislating on matters which are essentially private.
I do not want to drag in a totally different subject at any length, but I voted as I did on the hunting Bill not because I like hunting—I detest it—but because I believed that it was not a proper subject for legislation as it interfered with areas in which people should be free to pursue their own objectives. In my view, this is a fortiori the case for the Bill which is now before us. It is for that reason that I believe that we should not follow the route recommended to us by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but should follow that recommended by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley.
Baroness Lockwood: Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I did not participate in the Second Reading debate for the simple reason that I could not be in London that evening. However, I greatly welcome the Bill. I did not expect to speak to the Bill at either Committee or Report stages as it seems to me that it is simple and straightforward. It attempts to take one more logical step towards providing equal facilities for men and women. That is the basic provision of the Sex Discrimination Act; namely, that where goods and facilities are available, they should be available on equal terms to both sexes.
As has been said, there is an exception to that; that is, that private clubs can provide facilities for one sex only. That was accepted perhaps as a compromise when the Sex Discrimination Act was passed. Nevertheless, it still provides for single-sex organisations if members of those private organisations so wish. But once they admit both sexes to the club, the underlying principle of the Sex Discrimination Act should apply; namely, that the facilities are available to both sexes.
I was surprised to read the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Borrie. I am sure that he will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was deputy chairman of the commission and I was chairman when we set it up in 1975 and welcomed my noble friend as a member of it. He made a valuable contribution for about a year before he had to move on to another public appointment. I am sure that my

1241
noble friend Lord Borrie will recall the many complaints we received about facilities not being available to both sexes. Sometimes those complaints involved private clubs but very often they involved facilities that were in the public domain which the Bill had stipulated must be made available to both sexes. There was a parallel, which my noble friend Lord Borrie will recall, in the El Vino case. That involved a public house that was covered by the legislation. The rules of that public house were that men could sit down or stand at the bar to enjoy their drink but that women could only sit at the back of the room. They were not able to participate in the full discussions that took place. Those full discussions largely involved a journalist and therefore had some kind of professional importance. The principle was the same as that in this case—that women were not able to enjoy the same facilities.
I am surprised by some of the comments that have been made this evening—they were also being made way back in 1975. I thought that we had made tremendous progress since then. In many ways we have done, even with regard to private clubs. I refer to the number of private clubs that are now admitting women to full membership or partial membership. Full membership certainly represents a move forward. If only partial membership is involved, that is not a move forward because it does not provide the same facilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned, if one wants two classes of membership in an organisation, one can have that, but they must be open to both men and women. We must remember the principle that lies behind the Sex Discrimination Act and apply it to the Bill.
I turn to the figures of 25 as opposed to 2,000 members. Using the figure of 25 is logical because it is also used in other parts of the Act in relation to exceptions. That figure involves consistency. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment and ultimately to pass the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, say that his was a probing amendment. I hope that he has heard, from wiser heads and tongues than mine, a good many arguments that he finds very reassuring. His three amendments, if taken together, would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. He will be aware that I support the Bill. I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear that I oppose his amendments. I hope that they will not be agreed to and that he will be reassured by this debate and that which will follow it.
I am desolated to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. For the whole time that I have been in politics, he has been a shining light of rationality and liberalism for myself and many others. However, I disagree with him in this regard. I concur entirely in his attitude to hunting and I have voted consistently in that regard. However, we are talking not about hunting but about the treatment of different sexes within the same establishment. I am fairly certain that the Act covers private schools, for example, which can be single sex. However, if they are
1242
not single sex, they must treat boys and girls equally. That is all that the Bill will do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, the Bill applies the principles of the Act to a new area—that in which goods and services are provided. That extension is logical within the terms of the Act.
It has been suggested that the voluntary system is working. I shall give one example of where it does not work. When the EOC did a consultation a couple of years ago on equal membership—on what that meant and on women's rights as members—one person wrote saying that she bitterly resented the fact that, being a fully paid up, voting member of a golf club, she still was not allowed to use the same dining room, bar or lounge as the men. That is a perfect example of the sort of discrimination that this little and useful Bill is designed to eliminate.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall he extremely brief. I follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in speaking, in effect, to the first three amendments, which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my noble friend Lord Henley.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that there is a strong case to be made before the law intervenes in the private domain. I entirely agree. Indeed, I said on Second Reading that there is a limit to how much we should interfere with the rights of individuals who are acting in a private capacity. However, I also agree that there is a very strong case for equal treatment between the sexes when both sexes are invited or are able to join a club.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the Bill was somewhat illiberal. As a woman, I find it liberating. That said, my noble friend Lord Henley referred to difficulties of interpretation. That is important, particularly with regard to Amendment No. 3 and the proposed Section 29B. There is a need for further clarity in order to give the objectives of the Bill legal certainty.
In contrast, Amendment No. 1 is clear—it is a wrecking amendment. On that basis, we oppose it. I, too, am pleased to learn that the amendments are probing amendments. We are therefore confident that the noble Lord will not pursue them. I hope that he will give the Committee the time to amend somewhat the way in which some of the clauses are interpreted. There is still a certain amount of disquiet outside your Lordships' House because there is a sarong belief that the Bill will affect single-sex clubs. That is not the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I find myself in agreement with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Buscombe and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Perhaps it is not entirely surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, finds himself in such good female company.
The effect of the amendment would be to limit considerably the impact of the Bill by reducing the number of clubs to which it would apply. As my noble

1243
friend Lady Lockwood rightly said, a threshold of 25 members reflects a similar provision in other legislation. Members of the Committee will recognise that figure from the Race Relations Act. They will also recognise the need to draw a line at the level of very small private groups. We would be reluctant to depart from that figure without further reasons for doing so and without further consideration. It would be even more artificial to choose a number that was different from that used in the Race Relations Act.
Moreover, while no one knows the typical size of clubs, a figure of 2,000 seems to be so high as to reduce significantly the effect of the legislation. All those Members of the Committee who made that point did so wisely. While some clubs may be above that figure—for example, some golf clubs—many other clubs will fall far below it. It might also encourage the introduction of arbitrary limits on membership. We see no reason to depart from the current figure.
I shall answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I apologise for the fact that the Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has not been answered.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The Question was put in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch and not in that of my noble friend Lady Miller.
9 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I apologise for the failure to answer that Question. I shall certainly make inquiries and ensure that it is answered speedily. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that the Sex Discrimination Act defines "sex clubs" as those which can show their main object and essential character to be for the benefit of one sex only. The Government have no intention of removing the exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act which permits single sex clubs. I endorse all that has been said by Members of the Committee in this debate with regard to the fact that single sex clubs need not be imperilled by the proposed Act.
Lord Henley: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can again address the first part of her answer. She said that she would hope to produce an Answer to my noble friend's Question speedily. I remember on many occasions when speaking from that Dispatch Box using words such as "soon" or "speedily" or some other adverb. Often "soon" or "speedily" could be stretched quite some way.
I believe it is important that we all know exactly what the Government's intentions are, particularly in relation to this Bill. Therefore, I consider it important that we have an Answer to that Question before we reach the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps I may have an assurance from the noble Baroness that we shall have an Answer to that Question before the Bill reaches its Report stage.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am very happy to give that assurance. But I should have thought that the
1244
comment that I just made was the answer that the noble Lord required. I am quite clear that a Written Answer to the Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, needs to be given and then recorded.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I find myself in the position of replying to a debate in which many of the questions raised by Members of the Committee at the beginning have been answered by subsequent speakers. I am conscious that I am in the presence of some extraordinary experts in the fields of both race relations legislation and sex discrimination legislation, together with former commissioners and chairs of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope that my noble friends and other noble Lords who have raised questions will feel that many of them have already been answered.
I believe that the question raised by my noble friend Lord Borrie in relation to the figure of 25 has been answered on a number of occasions. That figure has been proposed because the purpose of this Bill, which I am also pleased to regard as a modest little Bill which is a tidying-up operation rather than a massive piece of social legislation, is to bring the law as it relates to sex discrimination into line with that of race relations legislation. The figure of 25 as a threshold appears in Section 25(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who referred to single sex clubs and the drafting of Section 29B. I am happy to give an assurance that we shall look at the drafting of that, and if I have the help of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in doing so, that will be of immense assistance. I am willing to accept that the drafting may not be perfect and can certainly be improved at a later stage to make the intentions of the Bill absolutely clear.
The main question asked by my noble friend Lord Borrie, which he also asked at Second Reading, was: is it really necessary to have the Bill at all? I believe that one needs to go no further than to look at the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Equality in the 21st Century—A new sex equality law for Britain. In that report the commission says that the evidence available to the EOC indicates very little voluntary change in the sector. It also states that complaints reinforce the view that the exclusion of such clubs results in a variety of discriminatory rules and arrangements which seek to perpetuate stereotypical images of men and women and which limit women's participation in club activities in a number of ways. A number of speakers—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—referred to the evidence that the EOC has gathered in relation to golf clubs. There is much more that can be said about that along much the same lines.
The one area of private clubs which has not been addressed in the debate but where the need for change is probably greater than in any other is working men's clubs. I suppose that that is the third leg of the Bill. It is here that the proposal to raise the threshold from 25 to 2,000 would have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, a completely wrecking effect. More than 99 per cent of the 2,700 CIU clubs have fewer

1245
than 2,000 members. Only 15 to 20 in the country have more than 2,000. The average membership of CIU clubs is approximately 900. Therefore, my noble friend's amendment would exempt virtually all the working men's clubs from the provisions of the Bill.
The lack of voluntary reform has been illustrated by the failure of working men's clubs to implement the internal reforms which the people who run the CIU—the executive and the full-time officers—have been desperately trying to push through at successive annual general meetings. They tried most recently on 6th April at their last annual general meeting. A motion to delete the infamous Rule 12(e) was tabled for the fifth time. That rule states that:
"Associate and Pass Cards may not be issued to lady members".
If that had been passed, it would have allowed the female members to enjoy the same use of facilities as guests in other clubs. For the fifth time it failed even to get a simple majority, let alone the two-thirds majority which it needed to pass under the rules of the CIU.
Another motion was put to amend Rule 12(e) to read:
"Associate and Pass Cards may only be issued to members who have full and equal rights".
Thus, women who already enjoyed full and equal rights in their own clubs would be able to obtain an associate pass card allowing them to use the facilities in other clubs which gave women full membership rights. But that motion also failed to get a majority. They even failed to pass a motion which would have changed the name of the CIU from the "Working Mens Club and Institute Union" to the "Club and Institute Union Limited".
Therefore, I believe that we have waited long enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, talked at Second Reading and again tonight about her frustration when she was chair of the EOC and about how she expected change to take place. She was amazed that neither the law nor the clubs had changed. The truth is that they have not. Indeed, if some people have their way, some of the changes which have taken place may be reversed. A piece in the Daily Telegraph today, for example, says:
"A group of renegade traditionalists"—
I quote from the Diary piece—
"is attempting to regain control of the Oxford and Cambridge Club, with the specific aim of reversing recent 'improvements'. To this end, eight senior members are standing for election to the club's ruling committee next month".
In the article the traditionalists are quoted as saying:
"'Women were allowed in here five years ago and standards have been slipping ever since', chunters one moustache. 'Not only do these new female members wander round the place in trouser suits, chatting on mobile telephones, but the committee has also seen fit to revamp the club with non-gender-specific furniture. As a result, the bar looks like a Holiday Inn"',
and so forth.
It is time that the law was changed. I shall happily listen to suggestions for change at later stages, but in the mean time I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, responds to the noble Lord. Lord Faulkner, perhaps I
1246
may make a point in response to that made by the noble Lord. Lord Lester. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, implied that I— and, for that matter the noble Lord. Lord Borrie—was interested only in the clubs in St James's and was not interested in working men's clubs. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord that the amendment, should it be passed, will also assist all working men's clubs.
I made clear in my remarks that I was speaking not just for the clubs of which I am a member but for golf clubs, working men's clubs and all clubs. It is a point of principle that those clubs must decide what they should do and how they should govern their business and not be told to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner or, for that matter, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that the CIU, the union of working men's clubs throughout the country, was, in the end, made to abolish the outright colour bar that it had only because of the Race Relations Act 1976. Does he not agree that that indicates how hopeless it is to think of voluntarism in that area?
Lord Henley: I believe that race and sex are completely different matters. As regards the voluntary approach, I also believe that this is something that is likely to happen both to working men's clubs and to St James's clubs in due course. I made clear that when I was a member of the Carlton Club I voted for women members. I believe that it is likely that that will happen in due course to a great many other clubs. The noble Lord has only to go into some of them—I could take him—to see how dead some of them are in the evening; whereas the club of which I am a member, which allows women in the evening, is busy and full. The economic forces are beginning to have an effect.
My understanding is that much the same is happening with a great many working men's clubs. This is a matter which is far better left to gradual processes, rather than to interfering busy-bodies in Parliament or wherever else, trying to promote their own views about what is right or wrong.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I must come back on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The official view of the CIU is that it wants this legislation to pass. The general secretary was happy for me to quote at Second Reading:
"The union's National Executive firmly believes that the future of clubs in our organisation is tied up with giving women full equality".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col.917.]
It has tried five times to get it through at annual general meetings and has failed hopelessly each time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the same sort of resistance to removing race discrimination in those clubs had to be removed by legislation after 1976.
Lord Henley: That might be the official view of the governing body of the CIU. I am talking about the individual clubs. I believe that it is a matter for the

1247
clubs to decide on their own future and on how they should operate. It will happen in due course, but let them do it without the noble Lord forcing them to do it.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has prayed in aid the Race Relations Act 1976, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I wonder whether he is aware that the Conservative Party totally opposed the inclusion of clubs in the scope of the 1976 legislation. Indeed, Clause 25 was thrown out by this House—I have the Division List in front of me—as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would be able to testify if he were still in his place, as he was a teller in that Division. It was reinstated in the House of Commons, but once again against the wishes of the entire Conservative Party. I thought that I should mention that as a matter of historical record.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It is also a matter of historical record that the Conservative Party was in power for 18 years after 1979 when presumably it had endless opportunities to take the provision of the private clubs out of the Act and did not do so.
Lord Borrie: I express my thanks to all those who have taken part in a debate which has lasted several times as long as I thought it would or perhaps should. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that some noble Lords were making Second Reading speeches. However, that was justified by their not having been present at Second Reading.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Dahrendorf, for addressing points which others did not concerning the key concept of freedom of association and how far down the line to the very small and medium-sized clubs a new law of this kind should intervene. My noble friend Lord Faulkner has given no indication of an answer to filling the gap between the number 25 and the number 2,000 beyond telling me what I naturally knew; that is, where the number 25 emanated from in the legislation. He has not given any indication that the number 25 could be 250, 500 or whatever. I found that to be an unsatisfactory aspect of the answer given by my noble friend and the Minister. If the Government and the proposer of the Bill intend rigidly to insist that every private association of 24 or more members is to be told how to deal with different classes of membership and so on, then I feel that I must take the matter further at a later stage of the Bill. Clearly, I shall not do that today as no one has been pre-warned. I am happy now to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 15 to 26.
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete what I may call the "guest" provision of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill provides in subsection (4) that
1248
men and women guests must be treated equally. There must be no question of women guests being allowed in one bar of a club only and not in the other bar where male guests are permitted. I have already spoken in favour, as have other noble Lords, of the key freedom of association which is so disregarded by the proposer of the Bill. Private clubs should be entitled to determine their own rules as to how their guests should be treated in the same way that Members of the Committee determine how guests are treated in their houses.
If the assumption is that no man and no woman would ever want or be allowed to associate only with others of the same sex, let me at least appeal to the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who was a little hard-line half an hour ago, at Second Reading said that one day she may want to belong to a club that admits only women and that it is not right,
"to prevent men or women from enjoying the company of their own sex".—[Official Report, 13/3/02: col. 930.]
Subsection (4) relating to guests goes to the extreme in doing just that.
There is then the question of guests in single sex clubs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, can help us further on this matter. He said at Second Reading that a single sex club that admits male and female guests must do so on equal terms and provide them with equal access to club facilities. He repeated the point when he wound up the debate. If that is the effect of the Bill, that is a gross interference with single sex clubs which he says are otherwise outside the Bill. But is he right?
New Section 29B(2) states that, in the case of an association within new Section 29B—that is a single sex club—
"nothing in section 29A shall render unlawful any act or omission of the association".
The guest element is new Section 29A(4), and it is an integral part of it. Surely, new Section 29B renders that inapplicable to single sex clubs. Whether or not I am right, or the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in what he said at Second Reading, is right, I feel that subsection (4) should be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to which I have put my name. As I said earlier, I am a member of two clubs. One of those clubs is for men only. Women never come in at all. It would not be affected by this legislation. The other club—Brooks's—is also a men only club but lets in guests on different bases according to gender, as we now must put it. In other words, I can bring in a male guest for luncheon, but in the evening I can bring in men and women. Men and women are therefore treated differently.
Under subsection (4) that would become illegal unless the exceptions in new Section 29B exclude Brooks's. I am unsure as to whether that is the case or whether it excludes working men's clubs, golf clubs and so on. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill can advise me on that in due course.

1249
I make a simple practical point. Earlier I said that I thought that it was likely that a great many clubs—working men's clubs and so on—over the years would gradually move and become mixed in all senses. I think that at Second Reading someone gave the example of the Reform Club. That is now totally mixed. But for a time after it went mixed it reserved one small room for the old reactionaries who had given away much in allowing women in, just so that they could feel at home for a while. After a while it was discovered that that was no longer necessary. If this measure is introduced it would be much harder for any club to take that gradualist approach. Certainly, a club such as Brooks's would have to consider very long and hard as to what it should do. It might be that it and, for that matter, any golf club or working men's club, might want to go in a backward direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would put it, and exclude women as guests entirely. For that reason I suspect that subsection (4) would do absolutely nothing to promote the purposes of this Bill.
Therefore, it is really in a spirit of being helpful, I suspect, that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and myself are promoting this amendment. We shall certainly be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has to say about it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I had not intended to take part in this part of the debate having spoken earlier. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has quoted what I said at Second Reading, I should like to take a moment of the Committee's time. The noble Lord is quite right in that I did say that I could have an affection for or an interest in being a member of a club which admitted women only. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents such a club existing. However, if guests are brought into the club, they should be treated the same whether they are men or women. That is all that is provided for in the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is attempting to change. It does not provide that they have necessarily to use the same bar as the members, but if they use a different bar, then they should all do so. It should not be divided by the sex of the guest as it can be at the present time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I had not intended to speak to this amendment until I heard the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Henley. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there is a problem in the drafting of new Section 29B. I have already said that as has the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The problem is that it does not clearly state that Brooks's, the Garrick or another single-sex club is outside of the scope of new Section 29A as regards discrimination against applicants for membership or existing members. It needs to do that; otherwise the Bill will not achieve its objective properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made the perfectly fair point that if we are right in saying that new Section 29B is intended to leave out Brooks's then on its face it seems illogical that Brooks's is caught by new Section 29A(4) in relation to guests. The promoters of the Bill
1250
need to make it quite clear, as I believe is the intention, that it does cover guests but it does not cover applicants for membership or existing members if it is an exclusive single-sex club.
I do not say this with any irony or sarcasm at all— I am speaking perfectly straight—as regards the argument as to how to encourage the members of Brooks's to move forward to admit women as members. The old members of my chambers gradually got used to the idea of women being members on equal terms. We now have a woman as head of chambers and the practice manager is a woman. The majority of the outstanding members of my chambers are probably women. It took time, but we found that the presence of able women transformed the attitude even of the older generation. So it may be that when women are admitted to Brooks's as guests on equal terms with men in a club which I much enjoy visiting, it will convince the old and young codgers of the club that it is less terrifying to their traditional practices to admit them as members. That is not what this Bill is designed to do. It is not designed to be coercive in that respect. Therefore, while agreeing that we shall have to look at the drafting at Report stage, we would be opposed to the amendment as it stands.
Lord Henley: Following the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I am now even more confused. Is the noble Lord saying that a club such as Brooks's would be bound by subsection (4) of new Section 29A, and that we would have to treat our guests in the same way? That is what I object to doing. Is it possible that Brooks's would then have to think about giving up lady guests altogether. I do not believe that that would be a step forward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am saying that that is what the Bill should do; but, at present, it does not do so because it has not been aptly drafted in that respect.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to make a short comment on the amendment. I endorse what has been said about the drafting. Indeed, I associated myself with the comments made in relation to the previous amendment, and I do so again. The drafting is not entirely fortuitous. I hope that we shall be able to cure those difficulties by the time that we return to the matter on Report.
If such legislation is to cover the treatment of members and associate members of mixed sex clubs, the Government see no reason why guests should not also be covered by the Bill. Therefore, we do not support the amendment proposed in the name of my noble friend Lord Borrie, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. However, we are of the view that this amendment will need some very careful crafting.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I believe that I can give my noble friend Lord Borrie some comfort in relation to the drafting of the amendment. However, I do not think that I can give much comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. If the noble Lord is saying that he objects to any club being told that it has to treat guests alike,

1251
I am afraid that he and I will have to differ on that issue. Part of the aim of the legislation is to encourage clubs to behave in a civilised way towards everyone. It does not make any difference whether it is men or women, or, indeed, to which race people belong.
The Bill is a civilising measure designed to ensure that clubs should not discriminate against people simply because of their gender. It is certainly my intention that the legislation should clearly state that if people are guests in a single sex club they should be treated similarly. As I said in response to the earlier amendment, I shall be very happy to take away the drafting of new Section 29B in order to make that absolutely clear.
The difficulty with my noble friend Lord Borrie is that we are both at odds on whether or not the legislation is either necessary or desirable. I have no doubt that it is. I am pleased to have received support from my noble friend the Minister, who clearly also wants to see this Bill pass through the House. None the less, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment, because we shall return to the matter on Report.
Lord Borrie: Despite the helpful remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I fear that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Faulkner may result in the Bill being more restrictive when redrafted than it is now. Indeed, it may get at single sex clubs at least as regards the way in which they treat their guests. If that is so, it will be an inhibiting factor that may lead one to be more concerned about the Bill on Report than is the case at present. However, for the time being, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 49, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 5 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated on Second Reading that new Section 29B to the 1975 Act provides for single sex clubs to remain single sex clubs. I find new Section 29B(1) somewhat opaque as it stands, especially where it refers to,
"the main object of the association [being] to enable the benefits of membership … to be enjoyed wholly by men or wholly by women (as the case may be)".
Usually when one considers the main object of a club, a company, or whatever, there is a document, which probably says something about the nature of the objects in specific terms.
However, the main objects of the Garrick Club, which were set out in 1831, say:
"The Garrick Club is instituted for the general patronage of the Drama; for the purpose of combining the use of a club on economical principles, with the advantages of a Literary Society, for bringing together the supporters of the Drama and for the foundation of a Theatrical Society".
I have not read it all out but my point, in part, is that those are its objectives and nothing is said about benefits of membership being for men only—no doubt
1252
that was taken for granted in 1831 and all the people who produced the money by providing their fivers, or whatever, to set up the club were in fact men. As is well known, the only candidates for membership elected from that day to this have been men.
I therefore found the "main objects" part of the drafting unhelpful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner if he wants to exclude single-sex clubs. On the other hand, Clause 29B then states that in determining whether it is the main object of a club to enable membership benefits to be enjoyed only by men,
"regard is to be had to the essential character of the association and … in particular",
how the affairs of the association are conducted.
On that basis—especially the last point—the Garrick is clearly a single-sex club because no one else has a hand in determining how the affairs of the association are conducted.
The purpose of my amendment, which would delete the phrase about the "main objects", and so on, is to help to clarify Clause 29B. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the drafting is defective. I think that the draftsman has borrowed from a provision in the Race Relations Act 1976 that was designed to allow clubs that did not practise a colour bar but promoted, for example, the interests of Bangladeshi elderly people—an old people's home, or something of that kind, a proper and benign ethnic purpose connected with social, welfare or educational purposes—not to be made unlawful. Unfortunately, using such a definition in the clause will expose the Garrick Club to the risk of litigation on precisely the basis that the noble Lord set out.
Indeed, when I was a member of the Garrick Club, it occurred to me when reading the Act that one could have brought a court case to say that, under the rules—the contract of membership—women should be admitted because the rules are not phrased in a way that states that it is an exclusive male club. That is perfectly right.
I suggest that the way to deal with the matter is to clarify on Report exactly what should be the definition—for example, considering Section 34 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which exempts voluntary bodies in a much clearer way—and then to deal separately with the vexed question of guests. In other words, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the Garrick and Brooks's need to be absolutely clear that as regards applicants for members and members they are outside the scope of the Bill. We can then have a no doubt lively debate about guests, but if I may say so, I do not think that it would be right to press the amendment today, as it will not clarify in the way that is needed the right test to be used.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right when he says that the language has been borrowed from the Race Relations Act 1976. One can see the attraction of doing so to the extent that that

1253
uses tried and tested wording that is generally understood. But we would certainly interpret the Bill to include the "essential character" element. That would accurately provide a rubric into which single-sex clubs would fall. We consider that that matter could be clarified in the drafting. However, there is some attraction in retaining the phrases "main object" and "essential character" because of the way in which they have been identified in the past 30-plus years. They are terms of art that are well understood, in a legal framework.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I need not detain the Committee long. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that the matter can be best sorted out with some skilful drafting before Report. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
"29BA EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTION 29A IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
Nothing in section 29A shall render unlawful the provision of facilities or services restricted to men if the facilities or services are provided for, or are likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and—

(i) the facilities or services are such, or those persons are such, that male users are likely to suffer serious embarrassment at the presence of a woman,

(ii) the facilities or services are such that a user is likely to be in a state of undress and a male user might reasonably object to the presence of a female user, or

(iii) the facilities or services are such that physical contact between the user and any other person is likely, and that other person might reasonably object if the user were a woman."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3A, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 5. The object of the amendments is to respect personal privacy and to extend to private clubs the privacy safeguards in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that relate to bodies that provide services and facilities to the public.
I have in mind, as a good example, the Turkish baths in the RAC in Pall Mall. We do not live in Hungary or the Soviet Union where they were accustomed to males and females undressing in Turkish baths rather more freely than inhibited northern Europeans are used to. In the RAC, there are separate Turkish bath facilities for men and women but on unequal terms. My amendments would ensure that a club providing such personal, private services and facilities in which serious embarrassment might be caused if there were mingling of both sexes would not be guilty of any unlawful conduct.
Members of this House always particularly enjoy it when lawyers make mistakes. I must now say that I have made mistakes in my amendments that need to be rectified by Report. Amendment No. 3A says:
"Nothing in Section 29A shall render unlawful the provision of facilities or services restricted to men if"—
and the rest is set out. The problem is that I have gone too far. I have wholly exempted Turkish baths from the scope of the Bill, whereas I had intended the amendment to say:
"render unlawful the provision of separate facilities or services for men and women".
In other words, I intended to say that someone providing Turkish baths must do so on equal terms, but can do so separately. I failed to do that. For good measure, I must confess that, in my haste to get the amendments in, I referred in Amendment No. 5 to Section 34(3), when it should have been Section 35(3).
I beg to move the amendment, so as to enable debate, but both amendments, I am afraid, are congenitally deformed.
Baroness Buscombe: We support Amendments Nos. 3A and 5 in principle and look forward to the amendment of the noble Lord's amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We too support the amendments in principle but look forward to the perfected versions that will, in due course, be submitted.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am also happy to accept in principle what the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendments. I can reassure him that my faith in his infallibility has not been shaken by the minor drafting errors. The amendments are helpful, and they will improve the Bill. We look forward to considering them properly on Report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank noble Lords for not making me blush more than I am. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the definition of a liberal is someone who recognises human fallibility. Therefore, he is always aware that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. I am not at all sure that I am right and, therefore, I shall try and do better the second time. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 10 to 32.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 seeks to delete all of new Section 29C from the Bill. As currently drafted new Section 29C contains somewhat complex and, if I may say with respect, unclear and unhelpful provisions governing when a club may and may not hold single-sex sporting events. Those provisions are inconsistent with Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act, both in prohibiting single-sex

1255
events in some cases which Section 44 would allow, and allowing them in other cases which it would prohibit.
I believe that it would be helpful to Members of the Committee if I read out Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It states:
"Nothing in Parts II to IV"—
which relate to discrimination in the employment field and other unlawful acts—
"shall, in relation to any sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature where the physical strength, stamina or physique of the average woman puts her at a disadvantage to the average man, render unlawful any act related to the participation of a person as a competitor in events involving that activity which are confined to competitors of one sex".
As the Sex Discrimination Act's general provision on single-sex events in Section 44 would apply in any case, we believe that there is no reason to depart from its tested and tried approach of permitting such events—only where there is an inherent advantage to men in consequence of their strength, stamina or, perhaps I should add, physique.
I hope that Members of the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I agree with her amendment entirely, but I would like to take the opportunity, since she has read out Section 44, to say how unfair I find it as an extremely had golfer. The average male golfer is meant to be able to drive a golf ball further than the average female golfer. Unfortunately, I find myself playing with extremely able female golfers who seem to be teeing off 100 yards nearer the hole than I am able to. I find it very hard even to reach the female tee, still less to get beyond it.
I remember that when Chief Justice Taft who, while President of the United States, made the mistake himself of being about to tee off from the ladies' tee, the captain of the club came up to him and said, "Mr President, you realise that you are not allowed to play off that tee?". The President turned and said, "It is my second shot". I find it a great handicap and I wish that equality would enable me to beat women golfers. However, I am afraid that on any terms I am unable to. I fully support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government, too, would support the amendment. This is an area in which the Sex Discrimination Act has always recognised that the differences of treatment may be justified. The existing Section 44 of the Act therefore permits single-sex competitions in circumstances where men would enjoy an advantage as a result of their physical strength, stamina or physique. I say that irrespective of the beguiling statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am sure that with greater application he, too, will reach the goal to which he strives.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: This is the last amendment that we shall debate today and I want to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for the support she has given to the Bill not only today but on Second Reading. It cannot have been easy for her given the views which may exist behind her on her Benches, but her support is very much appreciated by me and by other supporters of the Bill.
The provision which she seeks to delete was originally included in order to meet the objections of the promoters of larger sporting events while at the same time securing some elements of equality in smaller club competitions, which were defined as those with prize money below £1,000. In view of the fact that it is a complicated area and, is perhaps outside the mainstream of what we seek to do in the rest of the Bill. I am happy to accept the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved.
Lord Henley: Before my noble friend responds, and as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made reference to what I take it was a reactionary element behind my noble friend, perhaps I may make one or two comments. I am completely and utterly confused about the purpose of new Section 29C. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, so glibly accept its removal, I fail to understand why the noble Lord included it at all.
However, having listened to the wise words of all Members who said that it obviously must be removed, I would like to read carefully what has been said by my noble friend and by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Faulkner. I may return to the matter at a later stage. I accept that the noble Lord will allow the provision to be removed at this stage, but if I find further problems I reserve the right to table an amendment at a later stage should that be necessary.
Baroness Buscombe: I hear what my noble friend Lord Henley says. That said, I have heard the opinions of other Members of the Committee. Given the overwhelming support for the amendment I have decided to move quickly and test the opinion of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Paramilitary Organisations: Ceasefires
  Paramilitary Organisations: Ceasefires
  Northern Ireland Executive: Members' Pledge of Office
  Northern Ireland Executive: Members' Pledge of Office
  Provisional IRA
  Provisional IRA
  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Street Crime Initiative: CPS Involvement
  Street Crime Initiative: CPS Involvement
  Private Single-Sex Clubs
  Private Single-Sex Clubs
  Enforcement Services and Bailiff Law
  Enforcement Services and Bailiff Law
  Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers
  Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers: Maternity Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: Maternity Benefits
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Iraq: UNSCOM Findings
  Iraq: UNSCOM Findings
  Export Licences: Arms and Military Equipment
  Export Licences: Arms and Military Equipment
  "Ms B" Case: Legal Advice
  "Ms B" Case: Legal Advice
  NHS Hearing Aids
  NHS Hearing Aids
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Control Agency
  Culture Online
  Culture Online
  SPC. org
  SPC. org
  Benefit Sanctions
  Benefit Sanctions
  Department for Work and Pensions: Cost of Workshops
  Department for Work and Pensions: Cost of Workshops
  Tunnels
  Tunnels
  National Air Traffic Services
  National Air Traffic Services
  Freight Wharves
  Freight Wharves
  Local Government Grant Distribution Formula
  Local Government Grant Distribution Formula
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Countryside Access: Zoonoses
  Countryside Access: Zoonoses
  Specified Risk Material Incinerators
  Specified Risk Material Incinerators
  Veterinary Science Research: DEFRA/MAFF Funding
  Veterinary Science Research: DEFRA/MAFF Funding