Sitting of 19 November 2002

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

    Potters Bar Rail Crash
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Health and Safety Executive to discuss progress on the report on the Potters Bar rail crash. [81309]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Regular meetings are held with the Health and Safety Commission and members of the Health and Safety Executive to discuss railway safety matters, which include progress on the investigation of the Potters Bar derailment. The next meeting has been arranged for next week.
    Mr. Bellingham: As the Secretary of State will know, the WAGN train on 10 May was en route to my constituency. Many of my constituents were on the train, although thankfully only one was seriously injured.
    We saw the HSE's preliminary report in July. Since then, unnamed officials have speculated that some of the stretcher bars did not have self-locking nuts. Other officials have speculated that Jarvis may well be charged with corporate manslaughter. There is considerable confusion. The crash happened six months ago; why have we not seen the final report? Surely it is for the Secretary of State to announce that a full public inquiry will take place.
    Mr. Darling: I have made it clear that once I have the HSE's final report I will decide whether that is appropriate. The HSE is expected to produce its third interim report in the spring, and I am informed that it is likely to deal with most of the outstanding matters.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as is right, I cannot control or influence the criminal investigation. Unfortunately, a large amount of information must be gathered and processed before the prosecuting authorities can make their decision. I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration at the length of time it is taking to complete not just the Potters Bar investigation but the Hatfield and Paddington inquiries. He can rest assured
    486
    that I will do all I can to bring the process to a conclusion, certainly in relation to matters for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am told that the Potters Bar points were due to be relaid over the weekend of 9 and 10 November, but that following an intervention by the Health and Safety Executive the job was cancelled, although it had been paid for. Is it not the case that Jarvis cannot now be trusted to work on our railways, and is it not time to return all such work to public ownership and accountability to the House?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is not entirely right about the Potters Bar points. It is true that their replacement was planned for the weekend of 9 and 10 November, but Network Rail itself decided, sensibly in my view, not to proceed because of the HSE's outstanding concerns, and for other reasons. The work will be done.
    As for maintenance generally, my hon. Friend will know that in September the then Railtrack announced that a large amount of its work would be brought back and, if not in house, would certainly be done by people employed directly by contractors. The key issue, as I have always said, is that one organisation—which is now Network Rail—must be responsible for when work is done and what is done, and, above all, for ensuring that it is carried out successfully. That process is now under way, and should be complete by 2004.
    Mr. Don Foster: How can the public be assured that the lessons of the Potters Bar crash will be learned, when 68 important safety recommendations made after previous rail crashes have either not been implemented on time or apparently sunk without trace? When will the Secretary of State tell the House which of the recommendations he intends to abandon or revise, and what he is doing to speed up the implementation of the rest?
    Mr. Darling: The vast bulk of the recommendations made by both Lord Cullen and Professor Uff following the Paddington and Southall accidents have been, or are on the way to being, implemented.
    The hon. Gentleman is right. Some issues, such as whether the European train protection warning systems should be fitted, are under discussion. When evidence was given to Lord Cullen, he was led to believe that there was an advanced European system that could be incorporated on our railways, but unfortunately it turns out that the system he had in mind does not work on any railway anywhere in Europe. It makes sense to evaluate systems to establish whether they would work, and whether they could be adapted for our railway system.
    The hon. Gentleman—indeed, the whole House—is understandably concerned about the fact that it is taking longer than expected to implement the recommendations. I am anxious to ensure that as many as possible are implemented wherever that is practicable, but if events have overtaken some recommendations it is sensible for us to consider whether further adaptations are necessary. The chief objective of the entire industry is to make certain that we have a safe railway system.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Cambridge-London line, which includes the Potters Bar points where the tragic accident took place, the service has declined sharply over the past two weeks? When members of the public ask, for instance, why there is an emergency timetable at weekends, they are told that it is because of emergency work on the Potters Bar points. Will my right hon. Friend investigate, and establish why such bad service is being given to commuters in my constituency?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about the points, but she is right: work is proceeding not just in that stretch of line but on all stretches, particularly at weekends, to bring the line up to scratch. The problem that we face is that we have had decades after decades of lack of investment in railway lines. The investment is now available. We are having to do a lot of work fairly quickly. Inevitably, that leads to some disruption. It is not the only reason for delays on that stretch of line. There have been problems recently, as those who travel on the east coast main line to Cambridge will know, but it is inevitable that as major renewal work is carried out there will be some disruption. However, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that what is important is that the work is done and, critically, that it is done properly.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Given that rail safety, as the Secretary of State has said, is hugely dependent on the role of Network Rail, can he tell the House whether he stands by the statement in his party conference speech that
    "The fundamental difference with Network Rail is that it will be publicly owned"?
    Mr. Darling: It is a public interest company, as we have always made clear. The company is owned by its members.
    Mr. Collins: The Secretary of State will know that the Office for National Statistics, saying it is acting on advice from his Department, has classified Network Rail as "a private sector institution". He will further know that the city analyst Standard and Poor said yesterday that confusion over the Government's relationship with Network Rail could cost the taxpayer £2.5 billion a year, money that could otherwise be invested in improving rail safety and passenger delivery.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not have a lot to do with Potters Bar.

    Air Services
    Malcolm Bruce: What plans he has to publish the Aviation White Paper. [81310]
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the future development of airports in Scotland. [81311]
    Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the options for the development of air services in the Midlands. [81331]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We will publish our air transport White Paper next year. It will set out a clear policy framework for aviation and airports in the UK for the next 30 years.
    Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he accept that in Scotland the proposal for a central Scotland airport has probably been resurrected every 10 years for the past 50 years? Does he agree that it is an unhelpful proposal and that what we need is to ensure that our airports are properly developed and supported? What can he do to ensure that we get more international flights, cheaper fares and less penal surcharges on holiday flights out of airports such as Aberdeen?
    Mr. Darling: The key issue in Scotland, especially central Scotland, is how we can do more to attract international flights. The consultation paper asked whether Edinburgh, Glasgow or both airports should be promoted to achieve that end. There is a proposal from a group of mainly business men in central Scotland, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, has resurrected the idea of building a new airport, probably near Falkirk; I think that it is actually 25 years ago since the proposal was previously discussed.
    The whole point of the consultation is to look at the various options. The Government have put forward some. No doubt during the consultation others will come forward and we will want to look at them. At this stage, however, it would not be right for me to discourage people from looking at options that are different from the ones that the Government have come up with. They all need to be looked at, bearing in mind that we intend to publish our proposals next year, as I made clear when I made my statement in July.
    Mr. Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in Scotland that expansion of airports would apply only to either Glasgow or Edinburgh? Will he commit himself to ensuring that in any future discussion the case for both airports to be upgraded will be made? If not, why not?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the debate, understandably. The whole point of the consultation was to ask people to what extent they thought demand would rise and how we should meet that demand. The Government have not at this stage reached a conclusion as to which or indeed whether airports should be extended. In relation to both Edinburgh and Glasgow, the consultation document makes it clear that it is unlikely that either of those airports would need another runway for at least 15 to 20 years, although they would probably both need changes to their terminal buildings.

    489
    However, the whole point of a consultation is to seek views and to enable the Government to come to a conclusion, which we will do next year.
    Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will know of the widespread opposition in the west midlands to the proposal for a new airport around Rugby, but he will also be aware that there is broad understanding of the important role already played by Birmingham international airport, which is bringing over £190 million into the regional economy. The issue is how Birmingham can realise its potential while protecting the environment. I wonder whether he has considered Birmingham's new proposal for a shorter, wide-spaced runway, and how that could fit into the consultation procedure.
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the position regarding the proposal to build a new airport in the midlands. Indeed, at our party conference I wandered through a large crowd of demonstrators and then realised exactly who they were, so I am in no doubt as to what they thought.
    As I said just a moment ago, the consultation period finishes at the end of this month. We will then have the Birmingham proposals before us, which we will need to look at. As I have made clear on several occasions, next year we will publish a White Paper on our final views as to what development is necessary, and where it ought to take place.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The consultation process is flawed, as the Secretary of State must agree. In Scotland, we do not know whether it is he or the Scottish Executive who are going to take the decision. In England, the process has been seriously flawed. Documents were not available, and nor were any Ministers. Will the Secretary of State agree at least to a two-month extension of the consultation process in England, to allow all views to be heard? Will he deny the front-page story in Sunday Business, which claims that the decision to build a second runway at Stansted has already been taken?
    Mr. Darling: As I have said, no decisions have been taken, but I should say that I do not accept the hon. Lady's central point. Many people have said that they want the uncertainty brought to an end as quickly as possible. In my statement in July, I said that in my view it would be in the interests of everyone concerned if the Government could reach their conclusions and publish their White Paper in the first part of next year, and that remains my view. It would not be in anyone's interest to stretch out the process in the way that the hon. Lady suggests—indeed, far from it. The distinct impression that I get from most of the people concerned is that they would like a decision to be made as quickly as possible, so that we can get on and develop those airports where that is necessary, and remove uncertainty from areas where we have decided not to develop.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Given the rising opposition to inland airports in the south-east, particularly at Stansted, can the Secretary of State
    490
    confirm that he is still prepared to consider other options in the south-east—for example, an offshore airport in the Thames estuary?
    Mr. Darling: I have made it clear that I am willing to consider any reasonable proposition, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that as the Government are not in the business of building airports—they will be built by the private sector—it would be necessary for someone to come forward with a proposal to build one in the Thames estuary. As I have pointed out, if people have better alternatives and other proposals, this is precisely the time that they should be presenting them.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Can I tell the Secretary of State that the consultation process is flawed, and that the consultation period should be extended? When he goes back to his Department, I want him to ask to see the file on the consultation for Thurrock, which is spitting distance from the proposed airport at Cliffe. There has been no consultation by his Department, no money has been spent, and there have been no public meetings in Thurrock, yet had the Almighty not put the Thames in the way, we would be cheek by jowl with Cliffe.
    Mr. Darling: The consultation is open to everyone in this country, no matter where they live. It is not a matter of spending money, as my hon. Friend claims. It is perfectly possible for him, his constituents and everyone else to make representations. [Interruption.] I have made it abundantly clear that it is open to everyone to make representations, and that is precisely what I would like them to do.
    Pete Wishart: I am very surprised that the Secretary of State made no reference to the extra £6 million of spending announced yesterday by the Scottish Executive. Will he ensure that this money is used to secure these new international routes, and not squandered on the quite outrageous subsidies and landing charges that are imposed by the British Airports Authority? Will he go further and look at the whole issue of landing charges in Scotland and BAA's virtual monopoly and stranglehold on Scottish airports, and ensure that this tax is no longer applied to them?
    Mr. Darling: In relation to the money announced yesterday by the Scottish Executive, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to urge me to intervene in a decision that has been properly devolved to Scotland. I know that the nationalists can be confused at times, but this is the sort of confusion that we do not normally come across.
    On the British Airports Authority, if the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, he can do so. The central question that faces Scotland is what we can do to attract more international flights to a greater range of destinations. In my experience, that is overwhelmingly the wish of the people of Scotland and I commend him to concentrate his mind on that rather than urging me to overrule the Scottish Executive, which, in any event, I cannot do.
    Geraint Davies: Residents in Croydon are concerned at the stacking of aircraft above

    491
    Biggin hill and the subsequent low-level flying over Croydon into London. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that airspace capacity and its management will be included in the consultation that ends next week and whether National Air Traffic Services will be consulted and its views on managing airspace be made public?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend may be reassured to know that as part of the exercise, the national air traffic control system has to decide how capacity can be accommodated and what are the best routes for aircraft. There is one point that he might want to bear in mind, which is that part of the reason for the number of aircraft that are circling around London in stacks is the limitations in airport capacity. If we can deal with that, we can begin to deal with some of the problems caused by circling aircraft, whether over Croydon or anywhere else.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the wide spaced second Birmingham runway option is mayhem to the residents in the east of my constituency; and the airport's own proposals are at best mayhem minus one? Will he realise that those people right now face blight without compensation?
    Mr. Darling: On the latter point, it is precisely for that reason that I have rejected calls from the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench colleagues to prolong the period of consultation. I am well aware of the fact that there are mixed views in Birmingham, just as there are in other parts of the country. It is far better that we hear those views, evaluate them and come to a decision as quickly as is reasonably possible, having taken into account all the representations that have been made. That suggests to me that we should make our decisions sooner and certainly not put off the situation for several months.
    Mr. Iain Luke: When the aviation White Paper is published will my right hon. Friend ensure that it addresses not only the issues involving the national airports covered by BAA, but considers the needs of the smaller regional and local airports such as mine in Dundee to ensure that they are able to get more direct flights to London and European destinations?
    Mr. Darling: The White Paper will cover airports in general, and the consultation papers cover all airports in the United Kingdom. It is necessary for us to get a view about how to make better use of the small regional airports. I am aware of the importance of Dundee airport to that city. There is no reason why airports such as Dundee, or local councils or anyone else, should not make representations as we formulate our national airport strategy, which will cover the next 20 or 30 years.
    David Burnside: Will the Secretary of State widen the rather narrow national terms of reference of the aviation White Paper? How can the United Kingdom work out an airport and aviation policy for the future when almost every airline and every airport in every European state receive either federal or state subsidies, whereas the United Kingdom has a free enterprise airline system and the majority of our airports
    492
    do not receive public sector funds? How do we widen the context to show the Government's failure to stop the unfair subsidies being given to our European competitors?
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure what view the hon. Gentleman is taking, although I believe that he knows something about the airline industry because I seem to remember that his previous occupation had something to do with one of Britain's large airlines. We do not believe that the Government should be in the business of propping up or maintaining airlines or air industries that would not be able to exist otherwise. I know that within Europe there are varying degrees of subsidies, but our vision of the future is that airlines ought to be able to operate on a commercial basis, and that is the central objective of our policy.

    Congestion Charging and Parking
    Clive Efford: If he will make a statement on the ability of the DVLA to provide adequate information to support congestion charging and parking enforcement. [81312]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I am confident that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency fulfils its obligation to supply vehicle and keeper information to support congestion charging and parking enforcement. The DVLA and Transport for London have conducted extensive tests to support congestion charging and I understand that TfL are satisfied with the accuracy of the information supplied.
    Clive Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the success or failure of charging schemes should be judged on the schemes themselves, not on the failure of any other organisation? I congratulate him on the work that he has done in the past year to improve the efficiency of the DVLA, but does he agree that we need it to be efficient to ensure the smooth exchange of information between the enforcement agencies and to target those people who provide false information and try to avoid paying vehicle excise duty?
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has raised his legitimate concerns about that issue in the Chamber and in the Transport Committee. In the practical trials that TfL has undertaken with the DVLA, TfL has been very satisfied with the quality of the data that it has received from the DVLA. TfL will follow up by other means those people who try to avoid the congestion charge. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Vehicle Crimes Act 2001 introduced a system of continuous registration, which will give great encouragement and incentive to people who sell or dispose of a vehicle to ensure that the address of a new keeper is passed on. That will further improve the quality of the records.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that the London congestion charging

    493
    scheme, which includes the areas of Vauxhall and Bermondsey, is a regressive tax that will hit the lowest paid hardest?
    Mr. JamiesonNo.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that the mayor is given draconian powers to impound and, if necessary, sell vehicles that regularly avoid the congestion charge. Does he agree with those powers and, if so, should not those powers be extended to other London boroughs and local authorities to deal with those drivers who regularly avoid paying charges by using false number plates or giving false names?
    Mr. Jamieson: Any powers that have been given to the mayor have been given to him by this Parliament. The DVLA follows up people who persistently do not pay the licence fee. As he will know, in a scheme in his area we have been identifying some of those vehicles and, if necessary, confiscating and crushing them. Those powers are available to the DVLA and the quality of the information that is now provided to local authorities will help them to take swifter action against abandoned cars, which are a problem in almost every constituency.

    Transport Projects (Financing)
    Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle): What recent discussions he has had with the Treasury regarding the financing of transport projects in the United Kingdom. [81313]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Secretary of State regularly discusses the financing of UK transport projects with the Treasury.
    Mrs. Calton: I thank the Minister for that brief answer. What steps is he taking to ensure the effective monitoring of work and expenditure in projects such as the west coast main line, in order to avoid a future fiasco such as the failure to deliver passenger upgrade 1 and passenger upgrade 2?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady rightly identifies the chronic failure of Railtrack to deliver on the west coast main line. That is why we had to put the company into administration, why Network Rail had to be created and why the work has now been transferred to Network Rail under a much more professional management. I thank her for her tribute to the work that we have undertaken in that regard.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an 11-strong team in the Treasury is now apparently taking transport decisions? It is suggested that an arrangement is being reached between his Department and the Treasury on several major financing projects. In future, who will be responsible for such transport projects?
    Mr. Spellar: It will, of course, be the Department of Transport, as part of collective responsibility. Given the considerable investment that is required by and being put into transport, it would be extraordinary if discussions did not take place between the finance
    494
    Department and the relevant Department about how to operate the programme. Not least, we will be looking at a number of special-purpose vehicles in the rail industry, as my hon. Friend will be aware. In addition, the ongoing public-private partnerships are significant in financial terms. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that such discussions were right and proper, and that the Transport Committee, which she chairs, would be asking questions if we were not involved in them.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Has the Minister asked the Treasury whether it plans to finance the new runway that he assumes will be built at Luton airport? Is he aware that my constituents will be severely affected by plans to expand Luton airport to the size of Gatwick airport? They are extremely angry that his report on the matter is unique in assuming that there will be a new runway at Luton, whereas all other new runway projects are treated as optional. Will he promise to give my constituents' concerns treatment equal to that given to the concerns of all other people living near airports?
    Mr. Spellar: Two issues are involved in that question. One has to do with the options in connection with airports, including Luton airport. The other has to do with the financing of the consequences of any decision. The local community has given the proposed expansion of Luton airport very considerable support. [Interruption.] Perhaps the people of Luton are looking forward to the jobs that will be created, in contrast to the not-in-my-back-yard position adopted by some Opposition Members. Luton residents have shown considerable support for the project.
    However, the proposal regarding Luton airport is being put up for consultation in the same way that all the other options are. We wait to hear the views of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and other hon. Members on that option, and the views of the wider community, industry and trade unions. We look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman's representations on the matter.
    As the right hon. Gentleman also knows—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister's answer is too long.
    Mr. George Howarth: When my right hon. Friend meets Treasury colleagues, will he urge them to speed up their consideration of the Merseytravel proposal for the first phase of a tram scheme that would provide a service to my constituency? Will he impress on them that the objective 1 element of the funding could be lost if they do not hurry up?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend and his Merseyside colleagues have made that point forcibly before, to me and to other transport Ministers, and to Treasury Ministers. We have had some constructive discussions

    495
    with the Mersey passenger transport executive and authority, and we hope to make an announcement in the near future.
    Mr. Archie Norman: May I remind the Minister that he was due to meet me and a number of other hon. Members this morning in Tunbridge Wells to discuss improvements to the A21 route to Hastings? Is the £32 million financing for improvements to the Castle Hill stretch in place? Will that scheme be delivered, subject to local consultation, and when will it finally be built?
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I had to go directly to Hastings today, where I was pleased to announce that work on the Lamberhurst bypass will commence in spring 2003. I also announced the opening of the exhibition showing the options for the route to Lamberhurst that connects the two stretches of dual carriageway, and for the route from Lamberhurst south to Hastings. The options are now out for consultation, and we await feedback from the public. We will then have discussions with the various statutory bodies involved to determine whether any planning inquires will be required. We look forward to the work being undertaken, because as the hon. Gentleman and I both know, the road is dangerous. It is also very important for regeneration in Hastings.

    London Underground (Crime)
    Mr. Tom Cox: How many crimes have been committed on the London Underground in each of the last three years. [81329]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): British Transport police recorded a total of 23,410 offences in the London Underground area during 1999–2000, 19,322 during 2000–01 and 18,230 during 2001–02. That reduction of more than a fifth in recorded offences reflects the success of the police's efforts, in partnership with London Underground, to tackle crime on the tube.
    Mr. Cox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he and the whole House will accept that there is still a serious problem of crime on the London underground. The activities of pickpockets are a particular problem, as a number of my constituents who travel by underground have sadly discovered recently. As it is the period leading up to Christmas and the new year, when people often travel with a large amount of money and a great many possessions, could not the police and the authorities that run London Underground embark on a campaign to bring to the attention of the travelling public the real dangers from crime on the London underground?
    Mr. Spellar: London Underground and the British Transport police have co-ordinated a campaign called Operation Jackdaw, which is a crime reduction programme aimed at catching pickpockets and educating customers about the dangers of pickpocketing and mobile phone theft. They are also
    496
    working on antisocial behaviour orders to remove some of the worst offenders from the network, so that they do not have the opportunity to reoffend.
    Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that my constituents from Bexley who have to use the London underground not out of choice but out of economic necessity are concerned about the level of crime? Will he use his powers to encourage the British Transport police to have a greater presence, so that single women, in particular, who travel on the tube at difficult times of the day see a uniformed presence to put off the 20,000-odd people who feel that they are—and seem to be—getting away with it?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should note that the figure is down to 18,000. That is too many, but we are bearing down heavily on those people. There has also been a considerable increase in closed circuit television coverage, which has aided and abetted the work of the police. The British Transport police have increased the number of regular officers employed in the London underground from 402 in 1999–2000 to 452. They are also working effectively with the Metropolitan police on the trains and in station surrounds, where ticket touting is a menace. That is a good example of joined-up policing and co-operation between London Underground and those two police forces, and it is having an effect.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the problem of crime on London transport is even greater on single-crew buses? Drivers have to cope on their own with assault, robbery and vandalism. What plans does he have to enhance security?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is changing the subject.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The Minister will not get away with his complacent responses on this issue. Every day more than 50 crimes are committed on the London underground. Is it any wonder that Miss Moneypenny and other actresses and key opinion formers in London are convinced that the imposition of the congestion charge in London is unfair, because it will force the vulnerable to go on the tube when they would prefer to travel by car?
    Mr. Spellar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier replies. I said that there has been a greater police presence, a substantial reduction in crime and co-operation with the Metropolitan police. One of the areas that women in particular are concerned about at night is station surrounds and the journey between the station and the car park. All those problems are being addressed, and we are having some success. I am only sorry that he cannot welcome that, because it is good news for the travelling public, especially the vulnerable.

    Bus Quality
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on the progress of bus quality partnerships. [81330]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Quality bus partnerships are helping to attract more people to public transport by improving the quality of local bus services. A survey undertaken for my Department recorded that 134 voluntary quality bus partnership agreements were in place in England and Wales in 2001. Some authorities are actively considering statutory quality bus partnership schemes as part of their bus strategies.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Outside my constituency office, wheelchair users can now board scheduled buses to Nottingham because of investment by Trent Buses and four local councils in low-boarding buses and boarding platforms. A range of action by the partnership, including improving Alfreton bus station, which my right hon. Friend visited earlier this year, has increased the number of passengers using buses by 10 per cent. Will he give an assurance that funding will continue to be maintained to existing bus partnerships that are successful as well as extending them elsewhere? Will he also join me in regretting—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too many questions. Only one supplementary is allowed.
    Mr. Spellar: I certainly join my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) in regretting the action of Amber Valley council, which I think that she wanted to mention, in moving away from the quality bus partnership. The key issue that we need to address is real partnership between local authorities and the bus companies for the benefit of the travelling public. There has been an increase of about 10 per cent. on the route that she mentioned, which is certainly good news for those who use the buses and it is also a significant contribution to achieving the shift from car to bus use that we are all trying to achieve.
    Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister agree that an important part of quality bus partnerships is the proper use of bus lanes? Will he join me in condemning the activities of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who abused the bus lane to avoid a traffic jam that was created by his friend Ken Livingstone?
    Mr. Spellar: I am certainly glad to hear that an Opposition Member supports bus lanes and we shall certainly note that for the future.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: In considering quality bus partnerships, will my right hon. Friend impress on bus companies the importance of provision for disabled—especially wheelchair-bound—people and the elderly to ensure that we can offer a full quality partnership to all our travelling public?
    Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a considerable number of bus companies have introduced low-floor buses with their new bus stock. Many community transport schemes are using a wide variety of vehicles that are much more accessible not only to people in wheelchairs but to those with walking difficulties. Indeed, I was recently near his area—near Rotherham—visiting Optare, a company that produces
    498
    many such vehicles for local use. We are seeing real partnerships, with the bus companies and local authorities producing that sort of service to achieve the widest possible range of transport and to reduce social exclusion.

    Infrastructure (North Staffordshire)
    Paul Farrelly: What grants and assistance have been given to north Staffordshire for the improvement of transport infrastructure since 1997. [81332]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Funding for north Staffordshire is allocated to Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire county council. In the five years since 1997, they have received a total of £93.6 million in transport grant and borrowing approval. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that funding in his area through the local transport plans has doubled in recent years.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he is aware that north Staffordshire needs more investment and, frankly, more regeneration expertise to unlock the capital sums that the Government have already earmarked. A key priority is regeneration for the whole A500, A50 and A34 corridor running between Stoke-on-Trent and my constituency. Will his Department consider favourably any requests by the north Staffordshire—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow an hon. Member to read out a supplementary question.
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend will know that the completion of the A50 dual carriageway to the M1 has brought many benefits to his area. The public inquiry on the A50—the Potteries D road—to which he referred, was completed on 7 November and, subject to the usual planning consents, work will start next year.

    Widford Bridge, Chelmsford
    Mr. Simon Burns: When he expects work to commence on strengthening Widford Bridge in Chelmsford. [81333]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Highways Agency is carrying out detailed design and preparation of a scheme to replace the Widford bridge and expects work to start in August 2003. The agency intends to complete the scheme by February 2005.
    Mr. Burns: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the delays caused by the weight restrictions, especially in the morning and afternoon rush hours, the fact that the Minister's answer suggests that the commencement date has been brought forward a few months will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and me. If he can continue

    499
    to use his influence and bring it further forward—if that is not pushing my luck—we should be even more grateful to him.
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged considerable correspondence on this matter, especially earlier in the year when Chelmsford borough council implemented the width restrictions before all the necessary signs were in place.
    Mr. Burns: A Liberal council.
    Mr. Jamieson: I was not going to make that point.
    Due to the poor condition of the bridge, there has to be a temporary closure of the rail line, and most of that work will have to be done during the quieter winter period, so the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there would be some difficulty in bringing the date further forward than 2005. I take his point, however, and we shall do whatever we can to bring the issue forward.

    M6 Toll Road
    Michael Fabricant: When the toll structure for the M6 toll road will be announced; and if he will make a statement. [81334]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Midland Expressway Ltd.—MEL—which has the concession to construct and operate the M6 toll road, also known as the Birmingham northern relief road, is responsible for setting and announcing toll levels.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that answer. As he knows, many people in the west midlands welcome the construction of the road, which will do much to stimulate the economy not only in that region but also in the north-west. However, does he accept that it has caused considerable disruption to the lives of local people? Will he use his influence to see whether the toll structure will include discounts for the use of the toll road by local people in the west midlands?
    Mr. Spellar: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, that is a matter for the company, although his proposition seems fiendishly difficult and I am sure that if he considered its implications in other areas he would see the difficulties. However, he will be aware that, for example, we arranged for the canal to be taken across. It was extremely important that the work was undertaken during the construction of the road so that it could be done cost-effectively and I know that it was widely welcomed in his constituency and also, I think, by him.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend is aware that some of us in the region did not welcome the construction of that road. However, now that the first toll road in Britain is a fact, is the Department prepared to conduct a survey to assess the impact of traffic on surrounding roads, especially on the A5 past the village of Hints up to the Weeford island?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will know, from his previous incarnation as the leader of a local council, that we regularly work with local authorities to monitor traffic and, indeed, the effect of new road projects. That is enormously important so that we have proper data for our understanding about where and when future roads need to be constructed. However, if he has a particular problem, I should be more than happy to receive representations from him to see how it can be resolved.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As someone whose constituency has been greatly affected by the road, may I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)? When may we have an announcement about the tolls—whoever is responsible for determining what they should be? Will the Minister discuss with Midland Expressway some form of concession for local residents?
    Mr. Spellar: I suspect that deciding what is local in that context would be extremely difficult. There would be considerable argument about people living near the borders. The practicalities of such a course of action would be difficult and it does not commend itself—nor did it when the hon. Gentleman's party were in government and signed the original agreement.

    Bus Services
    Helen Southworth: What steps he is taking to encourage people to use bus services. [81335]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Government's 10-year transport plan and provisions in the Transport Act 2000 provide a sound basis for achieving improvements in bus services. We are building on that through a number of initiatives. For example, the bus partnership forum is bringing together the industry and local authorities to overcome any potential barriers to bus patronage growth.
    Helen Southworth: I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituents are benefiting from significant Government investment in local bus services, but will he use his very best efforts to ensure that we get a new bus interchange very soon to replace the current, inadequate bus station, which provides very poor access for disabled people, families with young children and older people?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the fact that we have doubled the funding for local transport plans, which will help to provide better bus services in her area. I am aware that she has made a very robust case for the Warrington bus interchange, which will improve facilities for passengers and provide real-time information and CCTV. I am also aware that she met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to press the matter very hard last month. I can assure her that a decision will be made very shortly.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister of State was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    E-Government
    Ms Ann Coffey: What assessment he has made of the outcomes resulting from the recent summit on the delivery of e-government. [81358]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Earlier today, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government will invest £6 billion in information technology in the next few years. That funding will include resources not only to improve access to online services, but to drive up the usage of key services.
    Ms Coffey: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he outline what benefits my constituents might expect as a result of the Prime Minister's speech today on the role of information technology in delivering Government programmes?
    Mr. Alexander: I can assure the House that this is a genuine coincidence, but the Prime Minister identified Stockport as one of the areas of e-services in the midst of an important, groundbreaking speech today. He talked about the experience of a GP surgery in Stockport in using new technology to ensure a more efficient service not just for patients, but for doctors as well. That is why we particularly welcome the announcement in relation to schools and doctors' surgeries made by the Prime Minister today.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Summits are all very well, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that they are no substitute for action? Has he seen the recent survey, published by Jupiter Research, which shows that the United Kingdom is one of the slowest connected countries to the internet, with only 7 per cent. using broadband, and most of that 7 per cent., of course, is in urban areas. Is not that appalling? Is he aware that the figure is nearly 30 per cent.? in Sweden? Why are they doing so much better than we are? Is it not the case that, under the John Major Government in the mid-1990s, we led the world in this area? Why is the United Kingdom now a world laggard?
    Mr. Alexander: Far from leading the world then, the real progress has been made during the past year. Broadband connections are being made at the rate of 28,000 a month in the United Kingdom and broadband prices have fallen. We have 66 per cent. coverage across the country in terms of DSL-enabled exchanges. The real progress is being made under this Labour Government, which is why we are rapidly moving up the progress league table to become an even more connected economy in the years to come.
    Margaret Moran: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that we are making in extending broadband across the country, but does he agree that it is important that our public services include interactive e-government delivery, particularly to allow
    502
    feedback on the quality of services provided to citizens and to ensure that there are opportunities for e-consultation and e-democracy?
    Mr. Alexander: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in this area; it is a matter of genuine concern to her. I would make two points. First, we have an obligation to continue to pursue our target of extending access to services now being provided electronically online. Secondly—again, the Prime Minister made this clear at the summit today—it is vital that we drive up the take-up of those services. That relies on having citizen-focused, customer-focused services, and we rely on having exactly the kind of feedback that has been identified to ensure that we design those services in the future.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: If every school and every doctor's surgery is to be connected to broadband, can the Minister specify how that connection will be achieved in those areas where it is not available on the telephone exchange?
    Mr. Alexander: A range of broadband technologies is available. One of the other aspects of the summit today was the announcement, made by my colleague the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness in the Department of Trade and Industry, on the establishment of the United Kingdom broadband taskforce, which is specifically charged with driving out further infrastructure across the country—exactly the point that I was making. Wireless, satellite, DSL—digital subscriber line—and cable technology is available. That is why the Government's platform neutrality is important. We need to work together with other regions to ensure that we get the right solution for each locality.

    Civil Service (Equal Opportunities)
    Mr. Chris Pond: If he will make a statement on progress in recruiting people from ethnic minorities into the civil service. [81359]
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in recruitment to the civil service. [81362]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are strongly committed to a civil service that is fully representative of the community that it serves. Ethnic minorities make up 7.6 per cent. of the civil service as a whole, and 3 per cent. at senior civil service level, up from 1.6 per cent. in April 1998. Our target is 3.2 per cent. of senior civil servants by 2004–05. Departments have delegated responsibility for most recruitment, and have set themselves challenging diversity targets.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the progress that is being made to make the civil service more representative of the community that it serves. However, is he aware that, in my constituency, as throughout Britain, many young people from black and Asian communities could do a very good job in our public services but may be reticent

    503
    about coming forward? The more senior role models we have, the better those people will be encouraged and the better the quality of public services that we can provide.
    Mr. Alexander: I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. It may be some comfort to him to be aware that the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations, along with the civil service, is running a series of seminars directed at the kind of challenge that he identifies in a range of communities across the country.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of improving equality of opportunity in the civil service would be to improve the nationality laws, which currently preclude one in six Londoners from even applying for the most lowly grade of clerical job? Is that not one of the real barriers to both recruitment in London and to equal opportunities?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend is aware that we have spoken in the Chamber on that issue before, and we have corresponded, too. In July, I wrote to him stating that we want to see progress to open up the civil service to selection on merit, regardless of nationality, but in a way that does not compromise our right to reserve posts for UK nationals where that is absolutely necessary. That remains the Government's position.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that one department in which people from ethnic minorities could make a vital contribution, in the current environment, is the Security Service? Can he say whether the Security Service has succeeded in recruiting people from ethnic minorities who would be of particular value under current circumstances?
    Mr. Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is a long-standing precedent not to discuss the intelligence services in this place. If there are specific matters of relevance that I can divulge, however, I shall happily write to him on that point.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister accept the verdict of the Commission for Racial Equality that the current position in respect of ethnic minority recruitment to the civil service is "thoroughly disappointing"?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly believe that we can do better, which is why we have set exactly the kind of stretching diversity targets to which I referred earlier. I commend the actions of this Government, however, in taking seriously and driving forward that agenda, given what we inherited in 1997.
    Tony Wright: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that progress towards the diversity targets has seen a setback over the last year? The upper reaches of the civil service are still overwhelmingly white and male, and although 52 per cent. of the civil service are women, only 20 per cent. of senior management posts are held by women. Will he therefore make sure that the new Cabinet Secretary shows as much energy as the last one in driving forward the diversity targets?
    Mr. Alexander: I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary on precisely that point. I also assure him that, at every level of Government, it is recognised that we must do more in this area. That is why we are driving forward this important agenda.

    Ministerial Code of Conduct
    Norman Baker: What plans he has to amend the ministerial code of conduct. [81360]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): A revised ministerial code was published in June 2001. It is kept under review. The normal practice is for the ministerial code to be updated and published after a general election.
    Norman Baker: Does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister, on 11 December 2001, promised to review the ministerial code to ban advance leaks of public announcements? Why has that not happened? Is it because the Government wish to retain the right to brief the press in advance, as they did a week ago in relation to the Queen's Speech?
    Mr. Alexander: First, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of briefings prior to the Queen's Speech or the intimations made. On his substantive point, however, there is clear precedent on this matter. If there are changes in the code, which is kept under review, correspondence is passed to the relevant Ministers. None the less, a revised code is generally published immediately following a general election, as I believe was the case after the last general election.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend believe that there should be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Secretary in the case of the ministerial code?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not. I believe that the Cabinet Secretary can provide vital information to Ministers on their interpretation of the code. None the less, it lies within the domain of the Prime Minister to be the enforcer of the ministerial code.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since the issue is killing by the state, in the light of the historic judgment in the High Court by Lord Justice Woolf at the request of the Wiltshire coroner, can the ministerial code of conduct be reconsidered? It might be helpful if it could deal—albeit in retrospect—with an incident that took place many years ago and if it could establish which Labour and Conservative Ministers knew what about the truly outrageous behaviour that allowed unsuspecting national servicemen, such as Ronald Maddison, to go to their deaths as a result of what were purported to be experiments on the common cold? In the light of the judgment, will the Government look at the matter?
    Mr. Alexander: As I have stated, we keep the ministerial code under review. However, it is normal practice for it to be issued in revised form only following a general election. I have heard the points that my hon. Friend has made and, if he wishes to write to me on this matter, I will ensure that the letter is passed to the relevant individual in government.

Sexual Offences Law Reform
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the reform of the laws on sex offences and offending.
Today, we are publishing a Command Paper outlining proposals to increase public protection and to modernise current laws. First, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, as the former Home Secretary, established these reviews? I pay tribute also to those who have contributed to the reviews and the consultations that followed. A summary of responses has been placed in the Library of the House.
Protection of the public from dangerous and sex offenders is a priority for this Government and for the House. All crime has a damaging effect on individuals and communities, but sex crimes, particularly against children, can tear apart the fabric of society.
We have already put in place important protection measures. We have established public protection panels to manage offenders in the community, and introduced sex offender and restraining orders. We have set up a taskforce on child protection on the internet and introduced disqualification orders to stop unsuitable people working with children. The registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 have already been strengthened. But there is more that needs to be done, in addition to the revision of sentences and monitoring included in the new criminal justice legislation.
We are working in government and with other agencies to develop new measures to catch offenders who abscond or change their names without telling the police. As a step towards this, all sex offenders will be obliged to register with the police every year. Fingerprints and photographs will be renewed. Offenders will be required to provide their national insurance details. In future, we will aim to use biometrics to ensure that we know who they are and where they are. Those entering Britain who we know have been convicted abroad will have to register and to comply with the Sex Offenders Act.
The research that we are publishing today shows that some violent offenders have a greater propensity to commit sex crimes. We are not prepared to wait until they do before we take action. For that reason, we will allow sex offender orders and restraining orders to be taken out against anyone convicted of a serious violent offence if the police believe that they present a real risk.
The law on sex offences is archaic and incoherent. The Sexual Offences Act is 46 years old and was mostly a simple consolidation of 19th-century law. Our proposals for reform reflect changes in society and social attitudes and, most importantly, will better protect the public, particularly children and the vulnerable. All sex crimes are abhorrent, but none more so than those committed against children.
The internet has opened up a new world. Chat rooms allow children to contact each other. But we must deal with those who use the internet to groom children for abuse. To tackle that both online and offline, we will
506
create a new offence of sexual grooming. That implements the recommendations of the taskforce on child protection on the internet. To further strengthen protection, we will create a new civil order to prevent inappropriate adult behaviour, such as sending children explicit e-mails or photographs. A further offence of an adult committing a sex act with a child will cover anyone over 13 but under 16, and where ostensibly consent of the child has been claimed. It will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years.
We do not believe that any very young child truly gives consent to an adult. In a recent case, a 32-year-old man was tried for having sex with a 12-year-old. The judge pronounced that he was not a paedophile. I beg to disagree. In future, such cases will be treated as rape. The issue of consent where a child of 12 or younger is involved will not be relevant.
We have no intention of interfering in consensual relationships between adults, but some people with a severe mental disorder or a learning disability are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Convictions under current laws are hard to achieve. There are often difficulties in gathering evidence from someone who is not only deeply distressed but does not understand what has happened. For that reason, we will create a new offence of sex acts with a person who could not have had the capacity to consent.
I want more criminals to be convicted, not at the expense of the innocent but because of the cost to society. Giving more rights to victims and communities does not erode the rights of defendants. This is not a zero-sum game. It is a miscarriage of justice when an innocent person is wrongly convicted; it is a travesty of justice when the guilty walk free.
Rape is one of the most terrible crimes. The current defence of honest belief in consent means that a rapist can claim in court, no matter how unreasonably, that he honestly believed that consent had been given, and walk away free. That is not justice. We do not wish to convict anyone who genuinely and reasonably believes that consent was given, but we expect a defendant to show that his mistake was not only honest, but in the circumstances, reasonable. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of asking anyone to keep a pen and paper by the bedside, but we will include a test of reasonableness in the law.
All rapes, including drug rape, will continue to carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. A new offence of administering drugs with the intent to commit a sex crime will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. We are sending out a clear message that such offences will be treated very seriously. A new offence of sexual assault will cover a wide range of offending, from minor assaults to more serious crimes such as violent attacks. At the top of the range, offences will carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Much has been written about the question of anonymity. I am not minded to change the present situation for defendants who have been accused of sex crime, but I am prepared to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on the point.
There is increasing concern about the role of transnational and organised crime in trafficking children and adults for sexual exploitation. New offences with tough penalties will cover those crimes.

507
We shall apply those offences to persons trafficked in the UK, whether they are British citizens or foreign nationals.
Many in the House will be aware of the terrible exploitation of women and girls through organised criminal activity, and the use of pimps to promote and control prostitution. Often that is linked to drug dependency and what amounts to organised slavery. It is time in the 21st century to face the reality of that sub-world of degradation and exploitation. We therefore intend to examine the scope for a review of prostitution. We will need to listen carefully to communities that are affected most. From antisocial behaviour to mafia-style criminality, communities are bedevilled by the terrible trade. We must aim to create a safer neighbourhood and an escape route for those trapped by vice.
Our current laws on sex offences are not only archaic but discriminatory. Criminalising acts between homosexuals that are not against the law for heterosexuals goes against the principle of equality and previous reforms. We will therefore update the law to ensure equality of treatment. Consensual sex in private that does not harm anyone should no longer be a criminal offence.
For the sake of absolute clarity and my own peace of mind, I want to point out that we will not be legislating to allow sex in public. Provisions in the Public Order Act 1986, together with common law offences, will remain in place. However, as well as those, we will introduce a new offence to deal with specific sex acts in a public place. That will reinforce a sense of decency and respect for others.
Our overall aim is to create laws that are fit for the 21st century and which provide confidence and protection—laws that remain true to the time-honoured and accepted parameters of a free and civilised society. That is why I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in providing a copy of the statement.
We welcome the Home Secretary's statement. It has been a long time coming, but it has come at last. Some months ago, we made six suggestions to increase the protection of children from paedophiles. From the White Paper and briefings surrounding it, I detect that the Home Office has adopted—or is in the course of adopting—four of those suggestions, and that is very welcome.
The White Paper deals with a wider range of issues relating to sex offences. In general and subject to certain caveats to which I will come in a moment, it appears to have found a reasonable way through what is by any standards a nasty thicket. We welcome the Home Secretary's refusal to make sex offenders registers public. We welcome the protection of disabled people and of minors subject to exploitation as prostitutes, and we welcome the Home Secretary's decision to retain the presumption of innocence in relation to rape. I hope that he will profit from his own example in the Extradition Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. I cannot say that I believe that the proposed changes to rape law are likely
508
to make a difference to conviction rates, but the Home Secretary has at least avoided doing any harm, for which we must grateful.
We are conscious, however, that the detailed drafting of the law alone will determine whether it has the right effects in practice, and that Bills that receive little scrutiny from the Opposition usually make bad Acts—one is uncomfortably reminded of the Child Support Act 1995. We shall accordingly look in great detail at the drafting of each clause when the Bill is introduced. Will the clauses on grooming be drafted so as adequately to distinguish between a manifestly evil pattern of genuine grooming and a harmless or even arguably harmless gesture from an adult to a child? Will the clauses defining the new test of reasonableness in relation to consent to a sexual act, to which the Home Secretary referred in his statement, be drafted to reflect the delicate balance between the right of the woman to be protected from rape and the right of the man to be exonerated from slanderous allegations?
Will the clauses on voyeurism be drafted to distinguish clearly between the landlord who sets up invisible closed circuit television cameras in his tenants' bedrooms and the innocent individual who merely espies whatever is still allowed once the Home Secretary has explicitly banned sexual acts in public? We cannot expect the Home Secretary to answer those questions in any but the most general terms today. However, we and our colleagues in the Lords will want to explore them, and others like them, constructively, carefully and effectively when the Bill is introduced.
All good criminal law strikes a balance between public protection and the protection of civil liberties. The Government have begun, after long consideration, to build on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, when he was Home Secretary, in the Sex Offenders Act 1997. We shall now do our job as an Opposition, probing and questioning to ensure that the right balance is struck when the Bill is enacted.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments and the manner in which he delivered them. I am glad that we made four out of six. I thought that he might refer to suggestions that had already been floated—I caught the echo in the right hon. Gentleman's voice. That is the Opposition's job—to pick up what the Government are about to do, turn it into a suggestion and claim the credit for it. I am happy to let the right hon. Gentleman have a bash at that while I have a bash at what he described as the "nasty thicket".
The right hon. Gentleman is right—Governments of all persuasions have eschewed engagement with this for a very long time indeed. In my approach, I was mindful of the balance that he talked about at the end of his speech. The difficulties of being able to find a way through this have exercised me for several months, and the statement was drafted and redrafted. I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman said about the detailed drafting of the legislation. It is going to be a nightmare, and I invite him and all Members who have a contribution to make to assist us. I would like unanimity to establish a new foundation that will ensure that this aspect of the law, if nothing else, has the wholehearted backing of Members on both sides of the House, not just a majority.

509
I agree that the test of reasonableness is difficult. It may not be easy to obtain true convictions of the guilty even with a reasonableness test. However, given that, since 1985, the number of convictions of the accused has dropped from 25 per cent. to 7 per cent., it is doubtful that people are coming forward with the relevant information or that this is being dealt with adequately under the existing law.
On grooming, I agree entirely that we need to be able to distinguish. The Crown Prosecution Service will have to make sensible judgments about what constitutes a genuine offence under the new law. We are all agreed. All parties were represented on the taskforce, as well as outside organisations, including my friends in Liberty. When I attended one of the first meetings after taking over, I invited them to come up with an alternative if they did not like what we were suggesting. I extend the same invitation to all those interested in the criminal justice system. It is easy to be against something, but very difficult to be in favour of an alternative if one does not have one.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises an interesting question concerning voyeurism. We do not wish to interfere with the freedom of the press or with people going about their normal business, but it is entirely wrong that people should be spied on and the product of that spying used for titillation or for exploitation in the sex market. It is long overdue that we should protect people in a civilised and free society from the entrepreneurship of those whose trade is in evil. For those reasons, I am pleased that we appear to have a rational and sensible debate as we create the legislation and introduce it in the early new year, to bring about a modern, more sensible approach to our laws.
Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome the consultation, the proposals before the House and many of the details. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Home Secretary will get full and constructive opposition. Particularly to be welcomed is the presumption from now on that nobody under the age of 13 can consent to sexual activity. That needs to be clear and straightforward to protect the young and to meet the great emphasis on the protection of the vulnerable and the apparently careful definition of consent, which seems to strike the right balance and which is welcome.
Does the Home Secretary accept that if the concerns of the public are to be allayed effectively by the legislation, we need to couple the next 12 months' legislative work with making sure that the Criminal Records Bureau is able to resume its checks, so that everybody in contact with the young and the vulnerable is checked? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is able to make sure that when British citizens convicted of offences abroad return to the UK, they will be known to the authorities in the UK from the moment their conviction is registered in the courts abroad? That has long been a matter of great concern, which I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
Young people should feel comfortable and able to give evidence that is as truthful as possible. Has the Home Office come to a view on whether the Scottish system of children's courts is a better model for young people's evidence and trials than the conventional jury trial, which is often intimidating and off-putting?
510
Do I take it that the Home Secretary is very clear—the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) also asked this question—that there will not be public access to the register of child offenders? The system that the Department has put in place is working well in making sure that those who need to know are told, and are told in time.
Lastly, one of the concerns in recent months has been about those who have been sex offenders and who return to the community. As well as monitoring, there needs to be treatment, which must be adequately resourced to make sure that they have the maximum chance of not offending again. Will the Home Secretary be able to couple these worthwhile modernising proposals with the resources to make sure that treatment is available in the community, to deal with people who are among the most difficult to deal with in the criminal justice system?
We welcome the proposals. It is 50 years since we modernised the law on sexual offences. I hope that the Home Secretary will see the measure as one that brings all sexual law reform together. If that is the case, we will welcome a great and consolidating opportunity.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I winced slightly when he said that he would give full and constructive opposition. I wanted him to give full and constructive support, but I will take the small measures that I can get.
Yes, we do need to ensure that the Criminal Records Bureau works effectively, and we are taking every possible step to ensure that, including receiving the external evaluation report before Christmas and acting on it. We should remind people, incidentally, that—difficult as its birth has been—the CRB has lessened the risks and increased the safeguards enormously since 1 April.
As for British citizens convicted abroad, we need the co-operation of our embassies and those who monitor the incarceration of people apprehended in other countries. As I said in my statement, it must then be ensured that they are covered by the monitoring and registration provisions domestically.
Evidence given by children is a difficult issue, and the Scottish example is worth examining. We intend to produce a substantive discussion paper on children at risk early in the new year, and I want to include the development of children's courts and related measures.
The shadow Home Secretary was right: we will resist the request for public access to the register, for all the reasons that we have debated publicly over the past few months. It would drive people underground, it would be ineffective, and it would increase the danger of people—outside courts, that is—not understanding the difference between "paedophilia" and "paediatrician".
The question of treatment is important, and I am glad it has been raised. A lot is going on. We know from the difficulty of siting clinics what a delicate and difficult area this is, but we must plough on together, and we must ask local politicians as well as local residents to be understanding. If we are to stop people reoffending, treatment must be better than a free-for-all in which people remain in the community, but no work is done to ensure that they do not offend again.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of a review of the law on prostitution and, in particular, his recognition that prostitution affects neighbourhoods as well. Will he consider measures to deal with kerb-crawlers, who cause a problem in my constituency? Such measures might include the imposition of penalty points on driving licences and the possibility of impounding vehicles. In our experience, both kerb-crawlers and prostitution on the streets can be dealt with very effectively.
Mr. Blunkett: The existing changes to the Act have strengthened our powers in relation to arrest. Fixed-penalty notices are a good idea, and it is important to concentrate not just on the women involved but on those who seek them out; but the real criminals in prostitution are the organised gangs behind it—people who capture young women in particular by enticing them into addiction to class A drugs, and the pimps who then use them not only to feed their own habits but to sustain themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Unless we tackle that organised mafia criminality, rather than merely concentrating on the individuals involved, we shall have missed the point.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Home Secretary may know that in my constituency live the families of the murdered girls Sarah Payne and Milly Dowler. I know that he has said he will listen to the Dowlers, as his predecessor listened to the Paynes. I am against naming and shaming, but will the Home Secretary confirm that his proposals will lead to indeterminate sentencing for sex offenders, with no premature release, and to much tighter arrangements to monitor offenders after their release if they have previously received treatment?
During their inquiries into the Milly Dowler case, the Surrey police found many people who had never been on a sex offenders register but probably ought to have been. The danger to individuals in the community exists, however tight the law is. Will the Home Secretary give some support to the AMBER—American missing broadcast emergency response—system, which at least gives the police a mechanism for conveying information to the public? It is possible that, during the first critical hours after an abduction, someone will notice something that will help the police.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have met Sara Payne twice and Michael Payne once, and I got in touch with the Dowler family after the tragedy. I am prepared not only to continue to listen to them but to respond in the way in which the hon. Gentleman requests. Within days, we will publish the criminal justice Bill, which will include proposals on indeterminate sentences, substantial strengthening of monitoring and registration requirements. I or one of my Ministers will be happy to talk to him personally about the Bill as soon as it is published.
I am prepared to look at the AMBER alert. I pay tribute to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I made remarks earlier about plagiarism. Where there is good evidence, and where we need to pick people up, I am happy to
512
plagiarise his suggestion that we use more upfront methods of communication across the country, including public screens, to warn people. We should share those ideas, because it makes Parliament a much more worthwhile place. Even with the present state of the Opposition, all of us have to bear it in mind that at some point the electorate will have had enough of us.
Julie Morgan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he look again at the issue of anonymity for defendants in rape cases, especially those involving rape within marriage? Many women hesitate before taking cases to court not only because a tiny percentage of defendants are convicted but because of the problems of publicity for them and their families.
Mr. Blunkett: The person making the allegation of rape is protected. My hon. Friend asks about the anonymity of the accused person. The difficulty for us and for the House is how we distinguish between rape and other very serious offences—for example, murder—and the damage that is done to the character of an individual who is accused but found not guilty.
I am prepared to continue to listen because this is a serious issue. We have been through it once before, and for every opinion in one direction there are several in the other: there is no clever, easy answer. There is certainly no political divide on the matter.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Further to that point, although I broadly welcome almost everything the Home Secretary has said today, I still have some reservations about the planned changes to the law on rape. I welcome the fact that there will still be a presumption of innocence, but I worry whether vexatious claims will be made more likely as a result of the proposals; such claims are made in a very charged atmosphere, and therefore fall in a slightly different category. Will he give an assurance that his proposals will not encourage vexatious claims? Subject to the last question, will he offer Labour Members a free vote on whether there should be anonymity for those accused of rape, because there is anonymity for those who are said to be the victims of rape?
Mr. Blunkett: Let me take the two substantive questions. The reasonableness test is important. So that there is no misunderstanding, particularly outside, it is worth making it clear that I have rejected the suggestion that someone inebriated could claim that they were unable to give consent—as opposed to someone who was unconscious for whatever reason, including because of alcohol, and was therefore unable to do so—on the ground that we do not want mischievous accusations in circumstances where someone genuinely had reasonable and honest belief of consent.
On the latter point, I am always prepared to consider and to recommend free votes to my right hon. and hon. Friends; they are sometimes very handy in difficult circumstances. We all learn lessons from that. I said that there is no party political difference and that it is a finely balanced argument. It does the House quite a lot of good if occasionally we accept that on major substantive

513
legislation and, on particular clauses and amendments, we are prepared to argue our case and to hear our colleagues, rather than to enforce a three-line Whip.
Mr. Chris Pond: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's proposed changes to ensure that there will be no excuses for sexually assaulting a child under the age of 13. I should point out, however, that, in two or three recent cases in my constituency, children between the ages of 13 and 16 were involved in sexual relationships with middle-aged men, yet the police and the Crown Prosecution Service refused to take any action whatsoever. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend assured the House that we are not reducing the age of consent to 13, and if he encouraged the police and the CPS to take action against what are still unlawful acts in such circumstances.
Mr. Blunkett: It is precisely because of the inability to take action in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes that, far from taking away something, we are bringing in a new law with a 10-year maximum penalty. It is correct to say that there is a real difficulty—not least when the participants are unwilling to give evidence—but we do need to tackle this situation, because it is unacceptable. The current legislative framework does not allow the police to deal with such matters decisively.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Secretary has mentioned several very useful initiatives that are to be commended, but may I raise one matter that concerns me and doubtless many others inside and outside this House: the notion of applying sex offender orders to people convicted of violent offences? In a typical scenario in which a person is charged with a grievous bodily harm, section 20, offence that is ultimately dealt with as an actual bodily harm, section 47, offence, some police officers will feel aggrieved that that person was not dispatched to custody. Will the Home Secretary accept the need for an independent evaluation of the police's belief in "a real risk"?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I will—on the evidence adduced and the sufficiency for the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue a case in the first place, and in the light of whether evidence was disqualified because it was shown that it had no relevance whatsoever to a sexual offence. This is a very delicate area. The research that we are publishing today shows that a real problem exists—a massive propensity in relation to further sex crimes—but I have emblazoned on my heart a point that was made earlier: in all such cases, we must balance the need for public protection and the well-being of the community against the civilised and human rights of the individual.
Vera Baird: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of whether the proposed change to the defence of honest belief—requiring that it be "reasonable"— increases the number of convictions, perhaps its primary importance is that it ought to encourage a change of attitude? It should deter some men from assuming consent, and it should tell them that their conduct will be scrutinised according to stricter,
514
but reasonable, criteria from now on. Will he give me his assessment of the impact of this change on the relevance of previous sexual history in rape trials?
Mr. Blunkett: We are treading on dangerous territory, and I am weighing words such as "scrutinise" very carefully. As my hon. and learned Friend will know—I made this point to the shadow Home Secretary-in developing the legislation we are prepared to take on board those with a long-standing and deep interest in this area, and in particular the questions arising from the history of the individual concerned, and how they can be weighed. Once it is published, the House will soon debate the criminal justice Bill. We will deal with the issue of how we evaluate the evidence on which the current circumstance and accusation is mounted, so that we consider the circumstances and behaviour of the individual in the light of the evidence adduced in court.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Home Secretary will be aware that in the House there is a general feeling of support for his White Paper, probably almost as strong as there will be for the Bill when it finally appears. He asks for a constructive reaction from the Opposition; may we ask for an equally constructive reaction from Government Members, because many positive ideas can emerge, including, for example, the paedophile information exchange case, which showed the need to deal with encryption, and the Milly case, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred, which raised difficulties over obtaining information from the internet that is not covered in the White Paper?
Mr. Blunkett: The simple answer is yes. There is no desire to exclude new ideas or new thinking on shaping our proposals. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has already raised with my colleagues the issue of encryption because I made sure that I found out what he had said to them. I would like to take that forward because it is a serious issue.
Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend accept a welcome for his proposals, especially his plans to ensure that those guilty of rape or sexual assault are more likely to be convicted? He is right to talk about a sub-world of trafficking, prostitution and sexual exploitation. It is an evil trade that destroys the lives of children and their families. Will he assure the House that encouraging a child into prostitution and engaging in the trafficking of adults or children for commercial gain will become offences that will be dealt with with the utmost seriousness?
Mr. Blunkett: On seriousness and severity, we are proposing sentences of up to 14 years. The message needs to get out to those who are organising that trade that we, as a House and as a Parliament, intend to join together in doing everything possible to go after them. If the message gets across locally as well as nationally that we are serious about this and will work together on finding a way to ensure that enforcement is as clear as our intent, we could do a great deal of good in the years ahead.
Sandra Gidley: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that eight days is plenty of time for a sex

515
offender to reoffend? If he agrees with that, will he act to protect young children in holiday destinations overseas by insisting that the period of notice is reduced from eight days, because any visit, however short, should be notified in order to protect young children?
Mr. Blunkett: The White Paper says that should such people move within this country, the registration period should be within three days. I am happy to look at ensuring that that is codified in a way that ensures that it is the same should they leave the country. I am weighing up the question of whether those who are registered and are severe offenders should leave the country at all, but we will have to look at that.
Ms Julia Drown: Does the Home Secretary agree that the Government must take the lead when surveys show that one in five young men think that it is acceptable to force a woman to have sex if that person is their wife, and a further 15 per cent. are unsure about whether it is acceptable? May I urge the Home Secretary to look seriously at the issue of irrelevant sexual history, which is brought into court cases far too frequently and is one of the key reasons for the appallingly low conviction rate? Unless that sexual history, which is hardly ever relevant to rape cases, is taken out of court proceedings, the appalling rate of conviction in rape cases will continue.
Mr. Blunkett: That is why, as I said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), we need to weigh up carefully how we distinguish between different forms of evidence. We need to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The substantive question about men's expectations towards women is a profound one. Let me make it clear that no should always mean no, and no young man, whether in a marriage or any other form of relationship, should presume that he owns or has rights to someone else's body. That is why those delicate issues need to be handled with great sensitivity.
The message is clear: when a woman says no, she means no, whether in marriage or otherwise. There should be no presumption in any circumstances that if someone does not wish to engage in intimate relations, they should be forced to do so. We need to develop that message as part of our wider sex and relationship education in schools, in which I played some part when I was the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. We also need to ensure that the message reaches young women that they have every right to say no, and that they should exert that right.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am glad that the Home Secretary is not proposing to publish the names and addresses of convicted paedophiles. Is he aware that I am currently professionally engaged in a case in which the publication of the name and address of an alleged paedophile—the person was actually acquitted—led directly to the murder of that person?
Mr. Blunkett: I was not aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was involved in that case, but I take his point entirely.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome today's proposals and I hope that we will see an increase in conviction rates for rape, especially in connection with offences committed against people with learning difficulties. However, I am deeply concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of existing police procedures and the current absence of video facilities and suitably trained individuals to conduct and record interviews with rape and sex abuse victims. Will the Home Secretary consider recording all interviews—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to read out a speech. It is time for questions. Perhaps the Home Secretary could answer the point that the hon. Lady has already made.
Mr. Blunkett: As part of our wider review of the way in which evidence is adduced, held and presented, the proper recording of evidence—so that it can be brought forward at the appropriate time—will be on the agenda. I hope that that is the question, of which I have not had notice. It sounded to me as though my hon. Friend was asking about the proper recording and presentation of evidence.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Home Secretary's concerns about the sex industry. Will steps be taken to prevent mass applications from folk from third world countries and eastern Europe, who come to the United Kingdom as entertainers but are kept as sex slaves? Is he aware of that problem? I welcome the sentencing standards, but in the past calls for higher sentences have not always been met by judges, who have passed low sentences, sometimes in extreme cases.
Mr. Blunkett: The new law on trafficking with the intent of prostitution and exploitation will address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Catching those involved is as much the issue as achieving convictions, so enforcement procedures will need to be stepped up as part of much broader policies on people trafficking.
There is a problem with sentencing. All of us found extraordinary a recent judgment in which a judge totally misunderstood the strictures of the Lord Chief Justice. It is not normally my role to defend the Lord Chief Justice—or he me—but on this occasion he was maligned by the presumption that he had suggested that a low sentence should be given for an act of paedophilia in circumstances in which all of us would have expected the sentence to be as tough as the law provides for.
Mr. John Bercow: In reviewing the law on prostitution, which is as legally necessary as it is politically challenging, will the Home Secretary confirm that the physical protection of prostitutes, and their access to health and medical advice, will be paramount criteria?
Mr. Blunkett:Yes, and I very much welcome the spirit of the question. In fact, I could not have phrased it better myself. It is challenging in every possible way.

517
I understand the underlying thrust of the question, and I am not ducking it. I know that the provision of medical assessments and health care takes us up other alley ways, as one might say, but we have to take on this challenge. We in this century must do what Josephine Butler attempted 150 years ago, in a very different era and in a very different way. Otherwise, history will judge us very severely.
Mr. Chris Bryant: My constituent Ian Heffron is the uncle of the "babes in the woods" victims and will welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals on child sex abuse very warmly. I also welcome his statement today that homosexual and heterosexual sex offences should be treated equally under the law. That is a major step forward in British legislation. However, my right hon. Friend seemed a little coy when it came to the new offence of offensive sex in public. Will he say a little more about that?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not want to say too much. We want to ensure that there is clarity, and to give an indication—however difficult that may be—of the sort of activities that will be unacceptable when carried out in places where people would expect to walk, socialise and meet freely. We are talking not about people enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun in woods distant from these parts, but about activity that would be unacceptable in St. James's park or Trafalgar square. If people understand that, we will be able to calm their fears and at the same time open up equality and provide more sense in what is a very sensitive area.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, and especially those elements concerning a crackdown on the revolting trade in child prostitutes. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to extend the proposals to the sickening reverse traffic, whereby adult citizens from this country and other parts of the developed world go to third world countries to abuse children. Some rather frail laws are already in place on this matter, but may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to extend the scope of his proposals?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that the whole House would agree with that. We should take whatever steps are needed.
Fiona Mactaggart: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's additional proposals to protect people with learning disabilities, but will he consider extending the offence of grooming to include such people? He described how children were the victims of grooming, but people with learning disabilities could be made to consent to sexual activity. People who have found children to be protected more effectively have turned to grooming those with learning disabilities, with the aim of committing sexual offences.
Mr. Blunkett: The offence of grooming would apply in the way that my hon. Friend has set out when threats and inducements were clearly shown to have been used to secure consent from a person unable to give it, and when the person making the approach had understood that incapacity. The problem is more difficult than with children—for example, the declared mental age of the
518
person involved would have to be taken into account—but I do not think that it is beyond the abilities of man or woman to ensure that such a provision were enforced.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: To ensure that sex offenders do not pose as minicab drivers and rape young women, will the Home Secretary find ways to put pressure on the GLA and the Public Carriage Office to speed up the licensing of private hire vehicles in London?
Mr. Blunkett: Just for once this afternoon I am going to say that I have heard the point. The last Minister who dealt with the issue of cabs was warned that he would be lucky to get a lift anywhere, once his ministerial car had gone. However, we need to take on board the serious point underlying the question.
Margaret Moran: I warmly welcome the link that has been made between trafficking, prostitution and organised crime, which are blighting many areas in my constituency and need to be tackled urgently. I also welcome the new offence of grooming. Is my right hon. Friend aware that moderators of many children's chat sites are not checked by police or anyone else? Given that we know that children's websites are a honeypot for paedophiles, will he consider making such checks a statutory requirement in the future legislation?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not know whether the taskforce has concluded its discussions on that issue. I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who is taking this measure forward, will ensure that we examine that important area. I take this opportunity to say how much I value the support of my hon. Friend, who has guided me through this morass.
Tony Baldry: Will the Prison Service have adequate skills and resources to provide appropriate treatment for sex offenders while in prison?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. Increased investment is being made in that area. In the past, because people would not admit their guilt, they did not take up programmes. So far, programmes have been voluntary or based on a particular technique requiring voluntarism. I am interested in extending such programmes, because offenders who are due to come out of prison, including those who have been given indeterminate sentences, should have treatment and guidance so as to protect the public once they are released.
Geraint Davies: As my right hon. Friend knows, only one in 13 reported rapes end in conviction, and as a result many victims do not come forward. Does he share my hopes and expectations that the requirement on the defendant to show not just an honest belief but reasonableness will lead to many more victims coming forward and to more convictions of guilty rapists?
Mr. Blunkett: We all want to encourage those who have experienced this terrible crime and discourage

519
those who are making mischief. Every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken has tried to get the balance right, and that will be the task ahead.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Given that the internet is a genuinely international piece of equipment and is, sadly, the gateway to so much child abuse these days, is he having any conversations with counterparts in the United States and Europe to see whether a more common approach can be taken and more upstream protection be built in, possibly involving discussions with manufacturers of software and hardware? Unless we start to deal internationally with the use of the internet, will we ever get to the bottom of modern child abuse?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not know what has happened, but I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The G8 taskforce, which we are leading, is examining precisely those issues. I very much welcome those comments. This problem involves software manufacturers and servers. It is in the interests of a civilised and decent world that we should try to reach international agreements. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are no boundaries, and we desperately need to ensure that we protect children here and across the world.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it the Home Secretary's intention that DNA from convicted sex offenders should be added permanently to the police national database?
Mr. Blunkett: Currently, half the people who have committed a crime are on the DNA database. It is my
520
intention that that task should be completed by the middle of next year, which will put about 3 million on the database. Those who are currently in custody should have a sample of their DNA taken, which will assist us in apprehending future offenders. I stress that, although it is critical to pick up those who commit crime, preventing crime must be the paramount requirement.

BILL PRESENTED

  COMMUNICATIONS
  Secretary Tessa Jowell, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Peter Hain, Mr. Stephen Timms and Dr. Kim Howells, presented a Bill to confer functions on the Office of Communications; to make provision about the regulation of the provision of electronic communications networks and services and of the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum; to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting and of the provision of television and radio services; to make provision about newspaper mergers and, in that connection, to amend the Enterprise Act 2002; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 6].
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. The House will notice that I have imposed a nine-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, the purpose of which is to allow as many Back Benchers to speak as possible. I hope, therefore, that those on the Front Benches will take note.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FIFTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 November],
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign.
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Foulkes.]
    Question again proposed.

    Regions, Transport and DEFRA
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
    4.30 pm
    David Davis: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
    'But humbly regrets the absence of a Bill to ensure the impartiality of the Civil Service; and further regrets the centralising nature of measures on regional and local government, housing and planning; notes the absence of measures to end insecurity in old age with no Bill to abolish the annuity rule or tackle the crisis in the pension system; further regrets that the Gracious Speech contains no measures to deliver a health service in which no patient is left waiting, but seeks unfairly to charge local authorities for bed-blocking in hospitals, and to grant foundation status only to a small number of hospitals; is concerned at the failure to reduce the burden of regulation on business and to tackle the crisis in the rural economy; welcomes the Bill to create a Railway Accident Investigation Branch, along lines recommended by Her Majesty's Official Opposition, but condemns the failure to address the worsening transport crisis or to improve conditions for passengers, motorists and businesses; and further regrets the failure to give more control over schools to parents and governors, to restore teacher morale, and to improve confidence in the examination system and universities.'.
    Before I start on the substantive business, I am sure that the firefighters' dispute may come up in the debate. I will not deal with it in any great detail today because of the pressure on time, but the Deputy Prime Minister may wish to. We will have an opportunity to challenge his handling of the matter another day. I hope, however, that the whole House is with me when I wish him the best of fortune in trying to prevent the strike on Friday, as lives are at stake.
    Back in 1999, when the Deputy Prime Minister was last in charge of this area of policy, a Labour-dominated Select Committee condemned his Department's achievements as
    "largely confined to the publication of documents and policy statements and the establishment of task forces".
    With at least four of his Department's Bills included in this Queen's Speech, he is planning to do something, but unfortunately it is the wrong thing. Most of those Bills share a single theme: Orwellian doublespeak, in which
    522
    the Government talk of devolution of power but do the opposite. They are not devolving power down; they are grabbing it back up.
    Before I deal with those Bills I must refer to the one glaring omission from the Queen's Speech a Bill firmly promised, but not delivered. We urgently need a civil service Bill, to establish a clear boundary between the civil service and party politics. That is not only the view of the official Opposition. A senior member of the Labour party has said:
    "Never has a civil service Bill been more necessary in Britain."
    The senior parliamentarian who made that point is the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who speaks for many hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying that.
    According to one senior figure, such a Bill is needed to enhance parliamentary scrutiny and to clarify the boundaries between civil servants and special advisers. That senior figure is Sir Richard Wilson, the former head of the civil service. When he said that, he was speaking with the Prime Minister's authority. There is now general agreement both in the House and outside it that legislation is required to mark the boundaries between party and government. It is a mark of the way in which this Government operate that such a Bill should be necessary now, after so many years without one. None the less, necessary it is.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Would such legislation encompass bodies such as the BBC? When its former director general, Mr. John Birt, published his autobiography a couple of weeks ago he admitted to being part of a political campaign involving the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to stop the BBC introducing a Scottish news at 6 o'clock. The current director-general says that he was shocked by that revelation. Would such a Bill encompass the BBC, to secure its historic impartiality, which has been compromised by this Government?
    David Davis: No, it would not. I suspect that that would have to be achieved through an amendment to a communications Bill. The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his characteristically cogent manner, however.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and I have something in common as we both famously hate spin doctors. So we should agree on this matter, and I urge the Government, on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, not merely on the Conservative side, to introduce a civil service Bill as soon as possible. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, he will tell us when the Prime Minister's intention of introducing such a Bill will be honoured.
    Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be going on to talk about what is in the Queen's Speech, or will he take up all his time by talking about what was not in the speech?
    David Davis: Sometimes the Opposition have to highlight what the Government do not do, and on this

    523
    occasion there is an extremely important omission—as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, given his other position in the House.
    The Government are introducing three Bills and one piece of draft legislation, the draft housing standards Bill, which is generally welcome in its intention, although I want to sound a note of caution. History shows us that when Governments try to get too involved in the regulation of rents and housing, it can lead to disastrous consequences.
    Although we realise that houses in multiple occupancy play an important part in providing low-cost housing for rent, and we support greater protection for tenants in such houses that do not meet acceptable health and safety standards, it is vital that regulation should not be excessively burdensome for responsible landlords. If it is, it could actually reduce the availability of affordable rented accommodation and increase the cost of housing for those on low and intermediate incomes.
    It is not as if the Government have a good story to tell on housing. Since 1997 the number of homeless people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has trebled to more than 12,000. During the past couple of months, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to blame the right-to-buy policy for the spiralling number of homeless people under the Government, but since they came to office the building of social housing has plunged from more than 30,000 units a year to just over 20,000 last year. Even if the Government had only maintained the level that they inherited, about 35,000 extra social houses would currently be available. That would be enough to house almost three times the number of families currently living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation under the Labour government.
    Jim Knight: The right hon. Gentleman sounds concerned about social housing, so why does he propose selling it off?
    David Davis: With such remarkable ignorance, we get the most predictable questions. Even Shelter, which is against the right-to-buy policy, admits that it costs at most 1,500 houses a year, against the 35,000 that were lost as a result of the Government's dilatory approach to housing policy. When the draft housing standards Bill is introduced we shall consider it carefully but, while doing so, we shall remember the Government's poor record on housing.
    There will be three substantive Bills and I shall deal first with the planning Bill. Last December, the Government presented four Green Papers, which outlined their proposals for planning reform. If anything, those proposals, some of which have been dropped, were more complex than what they were intended to replace. There was a mixed story as regards consultation. The good news is that there were 15,500 responses to the Green Papers. The bad news is that most of them said that the proposals were rubbish.
    Let me make it clear that we support changes that will cut through red tape, speed up the system, give greater certainty to residents and businesses and restore power
    524
    to local people. That was also the aspiration of the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which was, of course, dominated by Labour Members. In its report on the draft local government Bill, the Committee stated:
    "if local government is going to regain the public respect and authority it once enjoyed, the Government must be prepared to trust it much more."
    Since the last war, Governments of all persuasions, including my own, have exercised too much centralised power over local government, but the Labour Government trust local government so little that they intend to abolish county structure plans. They trust local government so little that they intend to set up what they call "regional spatial strategies"—in other words, a new raft of red tape. They trust local government so little that they plan to set up what they call a "local planning advisory service": in other words, a new central Government quango to meddle with the decisions of local planning authorities.
    The Government trust local government so little that unelected officials will decide no less than 90 per cent. of planning decisions. Their instinct was to trust local government so little that under the original proposals, major planning decisions would have been pushed through parliamentary Committees with little more than an hour's debate—decisions on pylons, incinerators, railways, housing estates and other large infrastructure projects. That led one environmental coalition to publish an advert that summed up the reduced influence of local people with a picture and a slogan, "Your new power station goes here. What colour would you like the gates?" I am glad to say that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have pulled back from the brink on that heavy-handed, unworkable proposal. Unfortunately, he replaced it with something almost as bad.
    The Deputy Prime Minister now has the power to appoint inspectors, conciliators and advisers, and to set the timetable and the evidence taken for any large-scale planning application—and all as the result of one statutory instrument, on which there was 90 minutes' debate. That is control-freakery on the highest scale.
    The Government's instinctive lack of trust in local government is bad for the environment, bad for business and bad for democracy. It is bad for the environment because their proposals will impose incinerators, pylons, railways, housing on green fields regardless of local opinion. It is bad for business because the Government will introduce more red tape than they remove. After all,
    "extending developers' planning gain obligations will be the equivalent of introducing a stealth tax on regeneration."
    Those are not my words, but those of the CBI. After strong opposition from Opposition Members, the Deputy Prime Minister at least dropped the absurd tariff proposals, which would have constituted a stealth tax on development.
    The Government's instinctive lack of trust in local government is bad for democracy because planning decisions will be snatched away from local people and granted to remote regions and a distant Whitehall. That is the purpose of the planning Bill. By itself, it will not create a single new house or bring back into use a single new patch of brownfield land. It will not devolve power, but grab it back. The same is true of the local government Bill.

    525
    We in the House forget too easily how much progress in this country was achieved by local government. Its institutions brought water supplies, sewers, street lighting, public baths and health services to Britain's cities after the industrial revolution. Local not central government delivered the reduction in infant mortality from 160 deaths per 1,000 births in 1850 to 20 in 1950. All that was done without best value initiatives, central targets, performance indicators and the like.
    David Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman have the grace to concede that those very substantial municipal gains were also made in the teeth of opposition from his parliamentary predecessors in the Conservative party?
    David Davis: That certainly not true. What I am talking about was often done by Conservative council leaders. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to try to score points, I recommend that he perhaps start by reading the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions when it considered the local government Bill. For example, Professor Travers pointed out only too clearly that the centralisation trends since the last war have been characteristic of all parties, and it is not particularly smart for one party to claim a monopoly of virtue. We have to recognise that there are benefits and virtues to be encouraged.
    We support changes that will truly give power to local people, allowing them to take more decisions and empowering local representatives to deliver. Never were such plans more needed. Year after year, the Government have tied up councils with best value, comprehensive performance assessments, inspection regimes and red tape. Whitehall tells local authorities how to spend an ever growing proportion of their money.
    In 1997, ring-fenced grants represented 4 per cent. of total central support for local authorities. The figure is now 15 per cent.—nearly four times higher. Local councils today are judged against 130 specific performance indicators. They must agree up to 46 plans with Whitehall, covering everything from pipeline safety to minerals extraction. They are monitored by four different inspection regimes, which cost roughly £600 million a year. The Government's response to all this is not to set local Government free, but to strengthen the grip of Whitehall.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the proposals to increase resources for planning departments, after years of cuts under the previous Government? Does he welcome the proposals for prudential guidelines on capital spending and extra resources—again, after years of cuts under the previous Conservative Government? Does he also welcome the proposals to allow local authorities to trade more freely, after years of legislation through which the previous Government tried to do everything they could to try to stop local authorities doing precisely that?
    David Davis: If I were the former leader of Sheffield city council, I would be very careful about what I said about the virtues of local government.
    526
    To address the point made by the hon. Gentleman, I shall start with another quotation:
    "The idea that you give freedom to the people who are already achieving is quite perverse." That is not something that would bother the hon. Gentleman. The quotation continues:
    "The real issues are the Councils in the middle and the failing ones which actually just need a lot more freedom & If government keeps pinning Councils down, they can't do the things they want to do and services won't get better".
    The Deputy Prime Minister will recognise that, as it was not my opinion but that of the former director of inspection at the Audit Commission, who now works for him in another context.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I'll be seeing him tomorrow.
    David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman should take his advice.
    As the Labour-dominated Select Committee also said:
    "The White Paper on which this Bill is based raised considerable expectation about a change in the relations between central and local government. On the whole the draft Bill appears to be far from a radical overhaul and in many cases gives more powers to the Secretary of State"
    That further extension of centralisation and control, as bad as it is, is not the main aim of the Bill.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's new-found localism, does he accept that there is any role whatever for central Government concerning the support of local government? If so, what is it?
    David Davis: Of course the central Government have a role—to a very large extent, the vast majority of local government activities are funded by central Government at the moment. There is also an oversight role, of course, but the difficulty is that in this area, with four different scrutiny regimes and £600 million of expenditure, it is not competent. Is the hon. Gentleman's question serious? If he does not mind, I shall move on, as that is such an obvious point.
    The main aim of the Bill, whichever of the three financial options the Government take, is clear: to gerrymander money from well run, high quality Conservative councils, which provide good service, to badly run, low quality, money-wasting, high-taxing, Labour crony councils, which provide poor service. That is the purpose of the local government Bill. It is the kind of gerrymandering that Britain became used to in the days of Dickens: not the best of times, but the worst of times. For people in Labour-controlled areas it may be the season of light, but for those in Conservative-controlled areas it will be the season of darkness—I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the quotation to which I refer, and knows what follows it.
    Much of this gerrymandering is being done by stealth, such as the plans to pool capital receipts from housing transfers. Of course that is not about devolving power down.
    Matthew Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    David Davis: Not for the moment.

    527
    This programme reflects the priorities of politicians, not the priorities of people. That brings us to the Deputy Prime Minister's flagship measure—the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. As I said, we support proposals shaped by democratic principles, which boost economic growth, slash red tape and truly give power to local people.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about gerrymandering, will he refer to the imposition of urban development corporations, which totally bypassed local people and local authorities, and did very little to regenerate the inner cities?
    David Davis: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has shown that he has just walked in to the Chamber. He missed the first half of my speech, in which I talked about the problems of the previous Administration.
    To return to the question of regional assemblies, we talked about ways of supporting people. The Bill will do none of those things. Let us take democratic principles as an example.
    Joyce Quin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    David Davis: In a moment.
    In a democracy any referendum, especially a referendum that intends to set up a new institution such as a regional assembly, must offer a clear choice. If people are to vote on whether to establish a regional assembly, they should know what they are voting for. What powers will the Assembly have? How many members will it have? How will they be elected? What will be the cost? The order should be straightforward: plan first, referendum second. However, this Bill turns that order on its head. There will be a referendum first and a plan afterwards. The Deputy Prime Minister is asking people to vote for a pig in a poke. When asked about the issue, his Department's answer apparently was, "There has already been a White Paper." It will come as news to Members on both sides of the House that a White Paper and a Bill are now identical.
    Let us suppose that the House has the temerity to amend a Bill that creates a regional assembly. People could find that they had voted for one kind of assembly, but got another. That brings me to my first question for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I hope that he will answer it in his speech: if the House amends a Bill, thus altering the proposed structure or powers of any assembly, will the people be allowed another vote, or will they have to take what they are given?
    Regional government will do nothing to boost economic growth. Indeed, it may slow it. On the Government's preferred measure of unemployment—the labour force survey—the highest unemployment rate in this country is, surprisingly, in London, at 7 per cent. The second highest rate is in Scotland at 6.5 per cent. London and Scotland may not, at first sight, have all that much in common, and their problems are certainly far from identical. However, the one thing they
    528
    do have in common is new structures of government, and those structures are slowing down economic growth. In London,
    "we are fast approaching a time when the financial pre-eminence of the City may become seriously imperilled."
    Those are not my words, but those of Gavyn Arthur, the Lord Mayor of London, about the Deputy Prime Minister's good friend, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London. No wonder London is the only area of England where earnings have gone down.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    David Davis: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait; I have already given way to him once.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): Give way. He has a plane to catch.
    David Davis: In which case he will need a new ticket—in more ways than one.
    It is striking that the gap between the regions in countries with strong regional government has grown wider as the gap between the general economic performance of most countries has got less. No wonder people look to subsidies to close that gap.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    David Davis: No, not for the moment.
    Scotland has a Parliament and its public spending is 25 per cent. higher than England's, but the English taxpayer foots the bill. The north-east is likely to be offered an assembly, and the voters there may hope that public spending there may rise closer to Scottish levels, and that taxpayers in the rest of England will foot the bill. That brings me to my second question to the Deputy Prime Minister: will regions that vote for assemblies get more money from the Treasury?
    I should tell the Deputy Prime that many people in the north-east are under the impression that they will get more money from the Government if they elect a regional assembly. We do not know where they got that impression. I cannot imagine that Ministers sought to mislead them, so the Deputy Prime Minister can set them right now. Will they or will they not receive extra money?
    Regional government will do nothing to boost economic growth, and it could slow it. It will do nothing to slash red tape; indeed, it will increase it. Regional government will usher in a new layer of politicians, and a new layer of bureaucrats, officers, advisers, secretaries, researchers, spin doctors, budgets, expenses, allowances—and trebles all round. Let us not forget the new buildings. Edinburgh and Cardiff are committed to spending £40 million on new buildings but, from my previous role, I have the strong memory that £40 million is the least the buildings will cost. The real cost will be much more than that. Why should the regions be different? For hard-pressed council tax payers, it will be higher council taxes all round.

    529
    Above all, regional government will do nothing to give power to local people. Instead, it will take it further away. Decisions made by county councils, which are closer to local communities, will be made by regional assemblies, which are further from local communities. The truth is that there will be no counties. For example, planning decisions now made in Hereford will be taken 60 miles away in Birmingham. Decisions now made in Kendal will be taken 75 miles away in Manchester. Decisions now made in Truro will be taken 90 miles away in Exeter—and all for one simple reason. This Government try to abolish anything that they cannot control.
    Mr. Huw Edwards rose—
    Mr. Davis: The counties tend to vote Tory so they will be gerrymandered into what the Government hope will be Labour-run regions, even if local people want to keep their counties, boroughs and districts. That brings me to my third question for the Deputy Prime Minister: if a majority in an area vote for a regional assembly but some counties vote overwhelmingly against it, will a regional assembly be imposed on them, against the wishes of their people? Will counties be abolished even if the majority of their residents want to keep them?
    Mr. Hilton Dawson Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre) rose—
    Mr. Edwards rose—
    David Davis: I will not give way.
    Institutions must have legitimacy, and that usually takes time. Our counties have legitimacy because they are organic communities, established in the geography and geology, the dialects and architecture, and the customs, practices and traditions of our country. Regions will be nothing more than lines on a map drawn by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. They will have no legitimacy whatever, and even less if they are imposed on counties against the will of those who live in them. In England, regions went out in the dark ages. One thing is certain: we on the Conservative Benches will fight undemocratic and costly bureaucratic regional assemblies every inch of the way.
    The flagship Bill of the Queen's Speech could have been one that dealt with the real pressing problems in this country. It could have made every hospital a foundation hospital, given heads the final right to exclude pupils, offered treatment to all young heroin and cocaine addicts, or extended the right to buy to all housing association tenants. Instead, the flagship Bill of the Queen's Speech will destroy our historic counties and create a new layer of government. It will employ fresh armies of bureaucrats, create new reams of red tape, impose a new tier of politicians on local people and place new burdens on business. It will not correct the democratic deficit in Britain. It will not answer the West Lothian question. It will not create a single new doctor, teacher, nurse or policeman. All it will do is waste the time of the House, consume the energy of Ministers and distract the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister which should be focused like a laser beam on the firefighters' strike.
    The Deputy Prime Minister's Bills share a single theme: the Orwellian division between claiming to devolve power while actually grabbing it back.
    530
    Conservative Members will not only oppose the Bill; we will fight to ensure that real power is given back to the people, where it belongs.
    4.57 pm
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) can go to bed early tonight. Indeed, if he hears that speech he will get to sleep much quicker.
    In line with my undertaking to keep the House informed, I will briefly update hon. Members on the fire dispute. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for requesting information on that. I can say from experience that I will certainly need the best of fortune.
    The House knows that we have done all we can over recent weeks to avert a fire strike, which we managed to do until the two-day stoppage last week. The House will want to thank the armed forces and the police in particular, and the other emergency services, for the great job they did last week. I also want to thank the public for heeding the safety warnings we issued. Incidents and calls were both down on normal times.
    I am doing all I can to avert the eight-day stoppage planned from this Friday. If a two-day strike was unnecessary and unjustifiable, an eight-day strike is even more so. It must be the Government's goal to prevent it from going ahead. Yet again, I call on the Fire Brigades Union to cancel its eight-day strike.
    Yesterday I held talks with the employers and the union, and this morning with Sir George Bain. I will continue my discussions later today. I am hopeful that the employers and the FBU can make good progress in their talks today and tomorrow. I have made it clear that any pay rise above inflation must be linked to modernisation. Sir George Bain has given us a route map to achieve that.
    As I and, indeed, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly made clear, the issues involved are relevant to the whole public sector, to people's mortgages, to their jobs and to the strength of our economy at a time of world downturn, as the Chancellor highlighted to the House yesterday. Our three responsibilities are, first, to seek to avert the strike; secondly, to make all necessary preparations should it go ahead; and thirdly, to ensure value for public money by giving a fair deal to the fire service and a fair deal to the public who fund it. I am sure that the House would want me to use all efforts to avoid a strike and its consequences, and I will keep it informed of progress.
    Today's debate is about those factors that affect the quality of life of individuals and our communities.
    Mr. Salmond: I saw the Deputy Prime Minister speaking on television on Sunday about his visit to his local fire station. The impression given, certainly in reports, was that some of the firefighters thought that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were not fully at one on the dispute. How was that impression conveyed and why was it gained?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: That was not the impression given; those were not the exact circumstances. I note that an FBU union official made that point, and I leave the hon. Gentleman to make judgments on that.

    531
    It was rather touching to hear the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden calling for a new localism, but we must judge that against his record. He was a member of the last Government for a long time. When he talked about giving power to local people he was certainly was not talking about giving money because in the last four years of local authority finance deals under the Tories, there was a 4 per cent. cut in real terms. Compare that with the first four years of this Labour Administration, who gave a 20 per cent. increase in resources. Resources are quite important if there is to be power, decision making and services in a local area.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked us to trust local authorities and wondered why we do not do so. The previous Administration's record had nothing to do with trust. They did not give enough resources, and against the wishes of the people of London, Humberside, Berkshire and Cleveland, they abolished county councils. I can remember the arguments on the Floor of the House about people wanting to keep their local authorities—all Tory local authorities, of course; that was why they wanted to keep them. That did not stop the then Government abolishing county councils. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now says, "Let us trust the people and listen to their views." I am afraid that his record does not bear out his claims for himself.
    I am sure that we will have many debates about devolution and regional government. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of bureaucracy, he should remember that his Government set up an unaccountable regional bureaucracy. They sent a considerable number of civil servants to every region—every Department was represented—but they could not bring themselves to make those civil servants accountable to the people of the regions. So the right hon. Gentleman should not talk to me about trusting the voice of the people in the regions. Under his Government there was no accountability whatever.
    When I made my statement to the House about communities in July—I hope to come to the House in January to complete the statement on housing provision—I said that all Governments, both Labour and Tory, had totally failed the people of this country as regards the provision of housing. Let us look at the figures. In the 1960s, there was a total of 1.2 million social housing units. In the 1970s, that figure was 1.1 million. During both those periods there were Labour and Tory Governments, so I do not seek to make the point that one was better than the other. There was a decline throughout those decades. By the 1980s, the figure had fallen from 1.1 million to 440,000, and in the 1990s it collapsed to 256,000. Social housing provision is the most important aspect of housing programmes.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the right to buy. Yes, there were about 1 million right-to-buy cases—something like 50,000 a year—but at the same time we saw a fall of almost 1 million in the number of new houses. The right hon. Gentleman might be concerned about providing social and new housing, but the right to buy does not achieve that. We do not oppose
    532
    the fact that it gives people a property right, but it is more important, especially in areas of housing crisis, to provide new houses.
    David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is the one who raised the question of the right to buy in areas of housing stress where there are shortages of affordable social housing. Does he deny that had his Government carried on for the past five years at the 1997 rate—we are talking about now, not ancient history—there would be 35,000 more social houses?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that capital receipts might be used to buy houses, and he has a fair point. When we discussed the matter, he said that he was going to send me his plan on that, but it has still not arrived. I look forward to its arrival, as we must have a proper debate on the subject. It is an important issue and we intend to enter into a debate on it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I will make a fuller statement in January on the community plan and how we will allocate resources to social housing and to housing provision generally. He well knows that the situation is different in different parts of the country. The previous Administration's right-to-buy legislation exempted rural areas where that right could be considered a threat to the provision of housing. The position was not felt to be the same in urban areas, but there is a powerful case to be made for certain areas of London with a housing crisis. I intend to claim for urban areas the rights that have been claimed for rural areas.
    The right hon. Gentleman said an awful lot about giving housing associations the right to buy. We shall wait for the plans which he suggested at his party conference were part of a new policy. The proposal is in fact not new—it was proposed by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979 and, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The trouble, however, is implementation. Housing charities have real difficulties with the long-term financing of housing—I am sure we all agree about that. The proposal was good for conference, but there was not much action—it was just about getting conference going.
    David Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? There has been a shortfall of 35,000 in the last five years in the creation of new social housing. The right hon. Gentleman has been blaming the right to buy for the fact that his Government have presided over a trebling of the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to 12,000. The social housing shortfall is three times that number—35,000—so why is he not building enough houses?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a good point, and I accept the criticism. I admitted in my last statement in the House that the amount of new social housing continued to fall under Labour Governments as well. Although it does not excuse the fact that we are not building enough houses, there is a fundamental difference: the right hon. Gentleman's Government kept £5 billion in capital receipts from local authorities' sale of houses, but would not allow them to buy more houses. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's interesting idea, but if the available capital receipts

    533
    could be used to build more houses, why were capital receipts of more than £5 billion from the sale of houses not used to provide new houses under the Conservative Administration? We dealt with that problem and put an equivalent sum into refurbishing well over 1 million council houses, whereas the right hon. Gentleman refused local authorities the right or resources to improve housing. That is the difference in our approach.
    We can argue about differences in our approach to housing, but I shall repeat what I told the Opposition last July. It would be better if Members on both sides of the House got together and agreed that having the right to live in a house—a right that is denied to too many people—is important for communities. Where we have the political will to do better—this applies to all political parties and Governments—we can make fundamental changes. When I make my statement in January, I hope that we can reach agreement about how we will achieve the plan instead of getting into party political business—we can all do that, but it does not build one more house.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the least eligible forms of tenure is ownership of a mobile home? Many park owners have neither the social nor the managerial skills to make a success of it, but have the whip hand over the tenants and can make their lives a misery. Why is there nothing in the Queen's Speech about new contractual arrangements which could bring much relief to those people?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Queen's Speech, as I shall mention later, does include some powers over landlords, and we are reviewing the position on mobile homes. Without doubt, there is an awful lot to be done, and we shall continue the debate. But to my mind we must deal first with the problem of landlords exploiting rented houses through housing finance, and the legislation contains powers to enable us to begin to do so.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Like everyone else, I have had a warning from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given way to quite a few Members and must get on with my speech.
    On 18 July, I made a statement to the House about the need for a step change in the delivery of new sustainable communities in which people are proud to live. The Queen's Speech made it clear that a strong and free society founded on rights and responsibilities is at the heart of the Government's agenda. We believe that a strong society cannot exist without a strong sense of community. As the Prime Minister made clear in his introduction, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand at every level.
    Our planning framework, about which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said a considerable amount, is now further reformed and has already begun to change our communities, including those aspects to which he referred. We had a target of 60 per cent of all new homes being built on brownfield land. That target has been achieved eight years ahead of time. That is something to be proud of. Thirty thousand hectares have been added to the green belt. That is a
    534
    considerable change and never happened under the previous Administration. We have tougher controls on out-of-town shopping. In 2000, for the first time since the 1980s, we achieved more in-town than out-of-town retail development.
    If we compare the number of social houses built in the 1960s with the number built in the 1990s, we can see that year on year, we are building almost 100,000 fewer social houses than we were 30 years ago, as I said earlier.
    Mr. Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a properly regulated park homes system could make a major contribution to the development of affordable housing, particularly in the countryside? Will he agree not to take any lessons about park homes from the Opposition, who left 200,000 people vulnerable by their failure to regulate the sector properly? Will he assure me that he will try to bring forward the excellent work that has been done under this Government—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is forgetting the advice given to the House yesterday by Mr. Speaker.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said. I may have a vested interest, as we have one of the biggest producers of caravans in my area, as does the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in his. I recognise that there is a great need for regulation of the sector.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I must make progress. I may come back to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will give me some time.
    As well as providing more resources, we are speeding up the delivery of affordable homes. The Housing Corporation has been given the go-ahead to fast-track 4,400 new homes to be built in London and the south-east; 2,800 of those homes will be for key public sector workers. Together with the approved development programme, the Housing Corporation will deliver more than 22,000 homes in 2003–04, but that is not enough, by any definition. There clearly is a problem, as I have outlined.
    In the Queen's Speech it was announced that the housing Bill will be published in draft to allow the Select Committee the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will improve the standards of management of private rented accommodation, with selective licensing of private landlords in key areas and a reformed housing fitness regime. The Bill will also introduce a compulsory home seller's pack in order to tackle the stress and expense suffered by hundreds of thousands of house buyers each year when home sales fall through or are delayed.
    In my statement to the House on 18 July, I outlined my intention to publish the details of our communities programme in the new year. That programme will set out the details: further reform of the planning system; action to tackle the housing shortage in London and the south-east; and plans to revitalise the communities

    535
    suffering low demand in the north and the midlands. That complements the plans of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for a White Paper followed by a Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour. That will require a partnership between national Government, local government and neighbourhoods to stamp out antisocial behaviour. The measures set out in the Queen's Speech will help our communities to grow and flourish.
    Fundamental to any community is the quality of public services—schools, health centres and safe and reliable transport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will speak later about a Bill to create an independent body to deal with safety and investigating accidents. Equally important is the quality of the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will introduce measures to promote better management of our waste and our water supply and to combat climate change.
    In the previous Parliament, the Government gave the people of Scotland, Wales and London the power to take more decisions for themselves. Interestingly enough, each of those measures was opposed by the Opposition, and interestingly enough, each was accepted and endorsed after it had been introduced. I suspect that they will take exactly the same approach to regional government. I am delighted to tell the House that our Bill on referendums will give the same choice to the people of the English regions, and not before time.
    Regions, if their people so choose—hon. Members tell us that we should trust the people—will be given a distinct political voice and a real say over decisions that matter to them. Elected assemblies will take functions from Whitehall and its agencies, not from local authorities. For the first time, regions will have a responsibility to take greater control over things that matter to people—economic development, regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment. That is what we intend to bring about with our regional proposals.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Deputy Prime Minister says that we should trust the people. Will he confirm that even if every single person in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria votes against a regional assembly and the abolition of their counties, those counties will be abolished and the regional assembly will be imposed if the people in Manchester and Merseyside vote for them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We will provide the opportunity of a referendum if we decide that enough people want it. We will then give people an opportunity to decide not only whether they want regional government, but what kind of unitary government they want. In the circumstances, a two-tier system would be the only possibility. People would know that they would be voting for regional government alongside unitary government, which would leave out the counties. We would be abolishing a tier—a bit like the last Administration.
    Mr. Bercow: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to retrace his steps briefly? What assessment has he made
    536
    of the impact of changes in the rules governing the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of payments of interest on local authority debt?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: That is an important question, to which the Select Committee addressed itself. It is a difficult one. We came to office saying that the receipts should be released to allow the refurbishment of housing. Owing to the debts incurred by some local authorities and the interest payments involved, we decided that the Treasury should provide more money and that some capital receipts should be retained. We did not take all the capital receipts. Money was made available to the Treasury, and all our actions were influenced by the level of interest and the level of Government debt. The Select Committee was anxious to achieve a balance between debts and capital asset receipts, especially in the context of housing. I realise that these are complex and difficult matters.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the question of the regions? If the Government are so keen to set up regional assemblies, why do they not positively advocate that local people choose regions, rather than maintaining a studied neutrality?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have never been accused of studied neutrality, particularly where local government is concerned. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not often listened to what I say. I clearly advocate the case, and I will do so during a referendum. Is that clear enough for my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Prentice: No, it is not.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Good.
    The Queen's Speech included the announcement of a Bill to reform the planning system. Despite past attempts to reform the planning system—I think all Governments have had a go at it from time to time—it is still too slow and inflexible. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made a number of points about that. The planning process, along with the culture of planning itself, needs to change. Ninety per cent. of councils fail to meet the targets for dealing with planning applications, and 47 councils still have no up-to-date development plans. I know that that is sometimes to do with resources, and sometimes to do with personnel. That is why we have had to address ourselves to the requirement for resources that were often cut under the last Administration because of the lack of resources given to that Administration.
    The planning Bill will establish the reforms needed to overhaul the system and increase effective community involvement. It will streamline the system and introduce a single level of plans, with strategic planning at regional level. It will also introduce business planning zones, and establish new processes to speed up the handling of applications for major infrastructure projects.
    Reform of the planning system is urgent, and this Government recognise that it requires new and additional resources. We do not just say that something needs to be done; we provide the necessary resources. Our announcement in July of a £350 million investment

    537
    in the planning system over the next three years is, I think, unprecedented. Furthermore, £50 million will be released to allow urgent work to start immediately. The extra money will go to authorities that demonstrate their commitment to high-quality planning. I will not hesitate to take action against authorities that are not performing adequately.
    In future, the planning system will help to deliver priority services to our communities: new homes, new schools, new hospitals and a reliable, safe public transport system—all in a clean and safe environment.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend mentioned bringing the planning system closer to the community. I understand that the Bill envisages an improved role for town and parish councils. Does my right hon. Friend expect any resources to be provided for training and skills at that important level of local government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We are concerned about the position at parish council level. I have always argued that parish councils could do a lot more about some of their own facilities: village hall developments and things like that. There is more to be done on that. There are pilot proposals on how that may operate and work. The more chance people have to make a decision that affects their communities and their lives, whether at parish or at urban level, the better. We are actively developing pilot proposals to achieve that.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider, even at this late stage, the fact that he will be asking for regional plans only when regional assemblies have been given backing by the local electorate and that until such time as regional assemblies have been given that backing, the county structure plan will stay with elected county councillors?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this but those bodies are staffed by an awful lot of Tory-elected councillors, as well as Labour-elected councillors, and I do not think that they have heard the message from here that they should not be co-operating. Even in Beverley, the leader of the council, Councillor Parnaby, sits on the assembly. We will give the opportunity for people to be elected to a body, a regional government, but in the meantime we think that regional assemblies have a role to play.
    We have given resources to check what the RDAs are doing. They can play a part in regional planning. We think that they have a role to play and so, apparently, do many Tory councillors. Although they obviously hear a different view here, they are prepared to concentrate on what they do and get actively involved.
    The House will agree that strong local government is essential for successful and thriving communities. Local government needs to deliver the quality of services that people expect and to have the resources for that. I have pointed out the greater importance we give to providing resources—as opposed to discovering in opposition that local authorities are important.
    Much has been achieved. The average performance of 80 per cent. of all councils is improving and in many areas the gap between the best and worst councils is
    538
    closing. We have strengthened the Audit Commission's role to produce comprehensive performance assessments for local authority activities. Those assessments will for the first time give us a baseline to judge each council's performance. We will reward the best, provide support, tackle weaknesses and intervene where necessary.
    The local government Bill was published in draft in July and benefited from consultation and scrutiny by the Select Committee. I am grateful for what the Select Committee did in examining the Bill. I always have trouble with Select Committees; it goes with the job. They make criticisms—they are there to do that. Sometimes, I like a bit of praise, but you cannot ask for too much.
    I have always been an advocate of the pre-scrutiny of Bills. It would be good if Bills were examined by a Select Committee before they came to the House. The Government may agree or disagree with the Select Committee; we may have another opinion, which is usually well founded. There is a lot of information and evidence, which I think has been cited by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, and on which the House can make a judgment when the Bill comes before it.
    Our response to the Select Committee was placed in the Library on, I think, 5 November. I am grateful for the work of the Select Committee. We have adopted its recommendations where possible, and rejected them where we disagree. I strongly reject the view that we have created more power in central Government or created more burdens for councils—the right hon. Member made the charge that we do not trust local government.
    The Bill offers new flexibility and extends the freedoms available to local government. I believe that it will free successful councils to innovate and to make real improvements in local services and the quality of life in communities; there is considerable evidence to show that it will. New borrowing powers will give local authorities the option to fund capital projects where they have the means to pay back the borrowing. Local authorities will have the power to charge for discretionary services and will be able to trade in any service in which they have demonstrated a strong performance on delivery.
    The Bill will give local authorities greater freedom, allowing them to end the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second homes and long-term homes: they will be allowed to reduce the discount to 10 per cent. That will give extra income to local authorities of approximately £65 million, which they will be able to use to improve local services.
    Norman Lamb: I am pleased that the 50 per cent. discount will be abolished, or at least that councils will be given the right not to discount the council tax by that much, but why not get rid of it entirely? The notes with the press release talk about an incentive being given to the owners of second homes to come clean. Surely that is not necessary. None of the rest of us has an incentive to comply with the law. Just get rid of it all together.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, I think that the judgment has been made. The way to establish a register

    539
    and to identify such homes is to require at least a 10 per cent. payment; otherwise, we would have to go searching for all those houses. A legal requirement to pay 10 per cent. is a practical measure that enables the keeping of a register, so that local authorities can get their resources.
    Mr. Peter Pike: In looking at this issue, it is important to recognise that we are talking about a discretion on the part of councils. As my right hon. Friend will recognise, many people in towns such as Burnley cannot sell their homes, and the introduction of 100 per cent. council tax on those homes would constitute a tremendous burden.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives a good reason why we leave the matter to the discretion of councils. However, to judge by what I have seen of his constituency—in certain cases, there are terrible circumstances—it would be nice to know who does own their own home. That is one of the problems that the pathfinder scheme that we have implemented in his and other areas seeks to address.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    The Deputy Prime Minister: New business improvement districts will generate a real partnership between business and local authorities, to improve local areas for everyone.
    In all these ways, we are continuing to strengthen communities, and to give them a greater say in the decisions that affect them most. That principle is at the centre of the programme of legislation before this House. All of us will need to work together, and to think differently, if we are to make a step change towards building sustainable communities.
    We have stability in our economy. We have a generous financial settlement from the Chancellor for regional development agencies, local authorities, housing, planning and regeneration. We have the legislation in the Queen's Speech, and the forthcoming communities plan. With all these measures in place, we have put in hand what is necessary to secure the step change in policy that is required to build successful, thriving and sustainable communities. I ask the House to reject the Opposition's amendment in the Lobby this evening.
    5.26 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Deputy Prime Minister has stood accused of many things in this House, but one thing that he cannot be accused of is legislative inactivity, whether in the past or the present. In previous roles, he has helped to produce many hefty Green Papers and White Papers, followed by a number of hefty Acts of Parliament. Since he became Deputy Prime Minister in 1997, at least 11 major Bills that he proposed have become Acts. In particular, I remember his legislative tour de force: the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which, I am reliably informed, emerged into the daylight as the longest Act of Parliament since the India Act 1784.
    540
    I doubt whether he now considers that creation his finest, given the debacle over Ken Livingstone and the sad, ongoing saga of public-private partnership for the tube.
    To me, that flawed legislation should be in the minds of the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers as they approach the Bills promised in this Queen's Speech. The GLA Bill, like those on regional assemblies and local government reform, promised devolution. Its rhetoric was very much like today's rhetoric on regions and councils. London was going to get its own government; it would regain its freedoms and pride. Yet what did we end up with after three months of trench warfare in Committee? A toothless, hybrid monster, whose parents effectively disowned it almost from birth. The problem then—as now, with the Bills on regional and local government—was that its parents did not want an independent, free-thinking child. They dreaded creating an offspring that might rebel, talk back, and challenge their parental authority. So the Government produced a weakened, malformed creature, with few powers to act and few incentives to grow up.
    The 1999 Act not only gave few powers away; it contained almost as many references to the Secretary of State as to the Mayor of London. The lack of trust that produced such weak devolution has resulted in weak government in London. I am afraid that the London experience may well be repeated in the Deputy Prime Minister's programme in this Queen's Speech. Indeed, that is exactly what will happen if the Government continue with their limited vision for regional and local government across Britain.
    On regional government, the Government seem not just timid but almost cowardly—or perhaps it is just that the Cabinet cannot agree. There is more than a suspicion that the Deputy Prime Minister is fighting a reluctant Downing street. As for local government, the Government's proposals show a total lack of trust. How can they talk so warmly about partnership with councils, when so many of their actions show their disdain for them? Neither of the main Bills for the regions and local government begins to match the rhetoric that has accompanied them.
    Before I discuss the Deputy Prime Minister's proposed legislation in more detail, I should like to comment on his update on, and his work on, the fire strikes. We hope that the employers and the Fire Brigades Union will talk, and that they will avoid the threatened eight-day strike. I wish all those involved in trying to prevent that strike the very best. In many ways the fire strike negotiations could have potential legislative implications. I was surprised that the Gracious Speech did not mention some legislation on fire safety.
    The basic proposition on the fire strike proposed by the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister is not disputed in many parts of the House. The proposition as I see it is that any pay deal must be accompanied by comprehensive reform of the fire service. There have been many questions and much argy-bargy about the handling of the dispute, but on the central issue of the link between pay and reform there is some agreement. It is more important that we focus on the reform agenda and modernisation because there has been far too much talk about particular pay figures when we still have not had proper discussions about reform. No matter what

    541
    the final pay figure is, although it matters hugely for the economy and wider the public sector, modernisation is the key to the dispute. Without wanting to be over-dramatic, the case for modernisation is a case built on saving lives.
    Yes, reform might produce efficiency savings, which must be costed to see whether they will help fund the pay increase, but let us remember the stronger case for modernisation and the fact that it could dramatically improve the quality of protection for the public. Reform will save lives. The Government have been too mealy-mouthed in making that case. It may be that they did not want to inflame the dispute or it might have been a negotiating tactic, but as crunch time approaches we need more of the Deputy Prime Minister's famous plain talking on reform.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: In a moment.
    It may be that the FBU has at last come up with its own proposals for reform—good and about time too—but it should be putting those ideas to the Bain review, and from what we have seen of its ideas so far, they do not seem to measure up to the Bain agenda on reform.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: In the detailed press notice that the hon. Gentleman is reading with such care does he have space for an insertion on the views of elected Members such as that in industrial disputes people have the right to put their point of view, the right to demand at least some understanding of their position and the right to exercise that under existing trade union law? Also, could he please not read the rest of his speech?
    Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, but I am simply following the lead of the previous two speakers. The hon. Lady is right that there needs to be a negotiated settlement between the employers and the trade union officials. However, the FBU leadership needs to get real about the need for reform and modernisation. Some of the terms and conditions of the fire service in the "Grey Book" are arcane and go back not just to the 1970s but to the immediate post-war period. The FBU needs to grapple with the reform agenda.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the circumstances the Chair has allowed reference to the fire dispute for obvious reasons given the concern of the House and the country. However, it is outwith the terms of the amendment under discussion and I hope that we will now move away from that subject.
    Mr. Davey: I am more than happy to do that. I simply wanted to respond because the Queen's Speech talks about a range of public service reforms, and that public service needs massive reform.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to justify himself to the Chair. I am simply suggesting that we should draw a line under that subject.
    Mr. Davey: I suppose we should be surprised that the Queen's Speech contains no surprises. Much of the
    542
    legislation has been trailed. We have seen the draft local government Bill, which was welcome and we are now to see the draft housing Bill. I congratulate the Government on publishing their legislation in draft form as it is helpful. We must hope that that will lead to better parliamentary drafting and more consultation, but I am concerned that the content will not improve.
    Let us start with the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, which has already been published. The Liberal Democrats are, and have been for many years, strong advocates of regional government. My immediate predecessor with responsibility for regional government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), published detailed proposals and won our party conference's support for them. I am indebted to him for that work, because it enables me to compare the Government's programme with our own. On Second Reading next week, I hope to make that comparison in more detail.
    I have two points to make tonight about that little Bill. First, and bizarrely, the Bill would allow referendums to be held before the final decisions have been made about the powers for the regions, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that the House must have decided what powers it will give to regional assemblies before people are asked about them. Ministers might refer people to the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", but since when has a White Paper-which is subject to consultation and change by Parliament—established legal powers? It is a strange notion of democracy to ask people to vote for something that has not yet been decided. It is like holding elections when the parties have not got round to finalising their manifestos. On second thoughts, perhaps that is where the Government started.
    Mr. Bercow: Given the hon. Gentleman's avowed commitment to localism, does he accept that most people's primary loyalties are to their village, their town, their district, their borough or their county, but not to amorphous monstrosities, otherwise known as regions?
    Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. Of course people support their local communities, possibly more than they do regions or other tiers of government. However, it is nonsense to suggest that there is no demand for regional government in many parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman has only to visit the north-east, Yorkshire and other regions to see that.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Member for Yeovil in the last Parliament said that that Commons is too big and its membership should be reduced. What is Liberal Democrat policy on the creation of regional assemblies? Should there be a corresponding reduction in the size of membership of this House?
    Mr. Davey: We have argued for just such a reduction.
    The Deputy Prime Minister is doing down his own cause as a proponent of regionalism. If we had a referendum campaign, it would soon become clear that people were being asked a hollow question, with no clarity. I cannot think of a better weapon to give to the

    543
    opponents of devolution. The strategy of failing to set out the powers of the assemblies before the referendum is counterproductive to the right hon. Gentleman's aims.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Would the hon. Gentleman vote for or against a regional assembly, given the opportunity?
    Mr. Davey: We will vote for regional assemblies, but we will also make detailed criticisms of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. It has a second major failing that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden did not mention. By tying a referendum on a regional assembly to local government restructuring, the Government are shooting themselves in the foot again. The most recent experience of such restructuring shows that it can be very destabilising, setting council against council, councillor against councillor—often from the same party. The net effect of the coupling of the regional question with local government restructuring will probably be that both are lost, because people who would normally be sympathetic to devolution will fight to preserve powers for their own communities. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the two issues should be decoupled. By all means, let us ask local government to restructure, but we should not tie the issue to regional assemblies. At the very least, the Government should ask people two separate questions—one on the regional assembly and one on any proposed local government restructuring. That would be more democratic and more likely to ensure maximum support for future regional assemblies.
    Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman suggests decoupling of the issues. Would he ask areas that already have unitary authorities whether they want secondary or tertiary levels?
    Mr. Davey: We shall certainly not propose that they be given the choice to revert. Most unitary authorities have had that debate and have made their choice in the very recent past.
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister say when he expects the local government Bill to be published? A lot of work has already been done: a draft Bill was prepared, and the Select Committee published a report to which the Government responded. I hope that the Bill is not too far away from publication.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It will happen soon.
    Mr. Davey: That is helpful. In fact, all the work that has already been done gives us an idea about what the Bill will contain, so we can talk about it in some detail. Many aspects are welcome, but it is extremely disappointing overall.
    As I said earlier, the Bill is built on distrust of local government. I am not alone in thinking that, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister admitted, the Select Committee was very worried about that. It stated in its report:
    "The Government promised to redress the balance between central and local government. The Bill fails to achieve that. It makes some small steps in the right direction, but at the same time
    544
    increases the power of the Secretary of State… Central Government seems to be terrified of trusting local authorities and allowing them their independence."
    That is from an all-party Select Committee. In addition, the local government information unit published earlier this year its commission on local governance report entitled "Free To Differ". The report looked at the White Paper proposals on which the Bill is based, and stated:
    "We have been left with misgivings that the proposals in the White Paper will not be sufficient to counter the trend of increasing centralisation and diminishing responsibility for local government."
    Is there anything good about the White Paper and the draft Bill? Yes, there is. The prudential capital regime is welcome. Liberal Democrat Members have pushed for abolishing controls on council borrowing and for the proposed system of credit approvals, and unequivocally welcome them. However, those new freedoms will be coupled with some worrying new powers for the Secretary of State. The draft Bill makes it clear that there will be special powers—unconstrained powers—to intervene in any local authority's ability to borrow. Intervention will not be possible only in special circumstances defined in the legislation, but can be undertaken at the Secretary of State's whim. That is a real concern.
    In addition to the powers to intervene over borrowing, the Bill will contain new powers to intervene in connection with minimum reserves, and its proposals to pool capital receipts could have some bizarre effects. Those pooling proposals give us real cause for concern. In some cases, they could act as a disincentive for councils to become free of debt or to manage their asset portfolios efficiently. That cannot be right, and we shall seek significant changes in that regard.
    We welcome the Government's change of heart over their original proposals to merge the revenue support grant with national non-domestic rates. That shows the value of consultation. As the Deputy Prime Minister has realised, the proposals would have reduced transparency, and I am glad that he has dispensed with them. However, the Bill contains no proposals for returning business rates to councils, either in their current form or reformed as we propose. I am afraid that that lack has not been welcomed by people in the local government family up and down the country.
    We welcome the ideas on business improvement districts. Some time ago, indeed, Lord Ashdown, our party's former leader, was one of the first to advocate such districts.
    We welcome some of the muted reforms to council tax. The abolition of the council tax benefits subsidy limitation comes not before time. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) noted in an intervention, we welcome the fact that local authorities will be given some discretion about removing the council tax discount on second homes. However, we are concerned about the retention of the mandatory 10 per cent., and we are not convinced by the Government's arguments on that.
    Liberal Democrat Members would prefer much more radical reform. The council tax should be abolished and we believe that local income tax should be introduced. That tax is fair and related to a person's ability to pay.

    545
    It is surprising that a Labour Government should stick with the Tory council tax, which is increasingly being shown to be one of the most regressive forms of tax imaginable. It is the next most regressive form of tax after the poll tax. Rising council tax rates place an especially damaging burden on the poor and the nearly poor in our society. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will recognise that trend from their constituency mail bags.
    The local government Bill contains some welcome measures, but they do not add up to very much. With their comprehensive performance assessment exercise, the Government are sending a clear signal to local government up and down the country that, at best, they do not care much for local government and that, at worst, they hold it in contempt. We should consider for a moment the comprehensive performance assessment process. Liberal Democrats had concerns about that from the start. A one size fits all model of inspection for councils across the country is not good enough. The costs are huge, and many of us doubt whether central Government telling local government what it should prioritise from start to finish has anything to do with local democracy.
    The allegations in last week's Local Government Chronicle provided the final nail in the coffin of this discredited exercise. It suggested that Ofsted's rankings of the performance of local education authorities were better than expected. Presumably, that should have been welcomed in Downing street. One would have thought that No. 10 would be pleased about an independent inspection showing that councils were doing a good job, but no. The better than expected Ofsted rankings implied that, under the Government's comprehensive performance assessment process, more councils would be classed as excellent or good, but No. 10 did not want a positive local government story. It is alleged that pressure was brought to bear by No. 10 to alter the provisional figures of the independent Audit Commission.
    There are serious allegations that No. 10 did not celebrate success in education, interfered with the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and bullied the Audit Commission, which is the public's independent watchdog. Those allegations must be answered. If they are not answered, the view that the Government want to rubbish local government, not set it free, will be reinforced. They want to hold on to power, not to empower local communities. Ministers should be concerned about that.
    What about other promised legislation? The planning Bill may be some way off, but that is probably just as well. It would seem from the Gracious Speech that the sole aim of reforming the planning system is to speed it up. Surely there are other issues to consider. What about central Government letting go? The Deputy Prime Minister recently made the bizarre decision to turn down the proposed IKEA investment near Stockport, which the town was banking on to bring new jobs and regeneration to the area. Was that done for good planning or environmental reasons, or was it really about political manipulation from the centre yet again?
    However we reform the planning system, it is vital that central Government butt out when these decisions are made. The Government's involvement in planning decisions has shown that central Government are the
    546
    real block and the cause of delay in the planning system. Reducing central Government's involvement could be the best thing they could do to speed up decisions. If planning was thereby more accountable to local and regional decision makers, so much the better. We await the publication of the Bill with interest, because as always the devil will be in the detail.
    As for the draft housing Bill, it is likely that it will contain much that Liberal Democrats can support. We need to change the regulatory system for houses in multiple occupation, because in many areas they are among the most unfit and dangerous properties in the private sector. When we consider the crisis in the affordable housing market, I doubt whether the Bill will be seen to contribute much.
    Local government and campaigners for regional government are not enthused about the Queen's Speech. Far from marking a major new stage in the devolution agenda, it tries to set strict limits on it. That is bad news for communities up and down the country, and bad news for a vibrant, pluralist democracy.
    5.48 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Parliament has long provided a platform for the inadequate, the inarticulate and those who read with excellence, so I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not dwell for too long on the problems of the Liberal Democrat party.
    A Queen's Speech at this important juncture in the second Session of a Parliament should give us a clear idea of where the Government intend to go and what important matters need to be discussed and proposed. Like the curate's egg, the Queen's Speech is good only in parts. It will come as no surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends to learn that I view the proposal for foundation hospitals with unalloyed horror. I have no desire to go back 30 years. The idea is a throwback to the situation that existed in the national health service when I worked in it. That was so long ago that all the members of my family who were born subsequently are now rather superior 40-year-olds who have their own views on these matters. Foundation hospitals are unworkable, divisive and unhelpful and they will drain from all the rest of the health service elements of finance that it desperately needs to catch up and has only recently begun to acquire.
    It is important to consider what is not in the Queen's Speech as well as what is. We are now so modern, of course, and many of the contents of the speech are trailed with such enthusiasm, that I assume that we may soon get to the point where Her Majesty—as she has very intelligent grandchildren—will decide not to come here in person but to text what she has to say. We will then be able to take part in an e-discussion of government. The reality—
    David Taylor: How about a virtual Black Rod?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That thought fills me with unmitigated interest.
    The Queen's Speech contains some very useful measures. I think that everyone will welcome the railway safety Bill. It is long overdue. The railway system has

    547
    been dealt with very haphazardly and has suffered because so many contractors have been brought in to undertake tasks, which has raised in the minds of the general public, if not of hon. Members, considerable doubts as to whether the railway safety system any longer meets the needs of the 21st century. The old railway inspectorate, which dealt with a highly integrated system under British Rail, knew how to disperse important railway safety information throughout the system rapidly, and did so in a way that ensured that people knew about any problems that had arisen anywhere in the system very early on. Once we began to bring in private companies, which all had personal interests and legal responsibilities, and which were different from the old integrated BR, that was not the case. I look forward to that Bill and I hope that it will be introduced as soon as possible.
    I would have liked to see some other measures in the Queen's Speech. For example, it is a shame that we are still waiting for the aviation White Paper. Given the length of time that it takes, it would have helped to push forward major decisions on airports, runways and the expansion of aviation if that White Paper had not only been discussed in considerable detail by the general public but had had decisions taken on it. It would have been helpful to have a clear plan on aviation to help us to decide where we want to go.
    In the brief time available, I will raise one or two problems and ask some questions. I understand that there is something now called a concordat between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, as to those who are taking responsibility for particular transport policies. I am not sure what a concordat is—it smacks slightly of a medieval carve-up, but I am sure that that is not the situation. That means that some questions will be raised in the House. Does it mean that the 11-strong Treasury team who are now deeply involved in transport decisions will in future be prepared to come before Select Committees, such as that on transport, which will want to question them on decisions that are being taken? Does that mean that when we discuss the amount of money that is available for the railway system we shall have access not only to the views of the Department for Transport, but to those of DEFRA?
    One of the few advantages of the enormous Department that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister used to run was that there was an attempt to marry environmental and transport needs and to come up with some sensible answers. It seems that that will not be quite so easy in future. So what is the concordat, what does it cover, will Treasury team members be available for questioning, and is it clear that not only DEFRA but the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be taking decisions in this field in the future?
    I must touch briefly on what is now an urgent problem in the railways. The present Secretary of State took over an extremely muddled and complex situation. He has not only made considerable strides in sorting out the practical problems but has a clear idea of where he wants to go. He will forgive me, therefore, if I point out one or two of the problems that have arisen.
    548
    First, there seems to be a difficulty with the Strategic Rail Authority. We needed the SRA and it was set up with some new executives and appeared to be carrying out an interesting clean sweep of the relationships between the train operating companies and the individuals concerned at every level. Since the demise of Railtrack, however, there have been one or two signals that have not contributed much to the clarity of the situation. For example, it is not particularly helpful for Sir Richard Bowker to suggest, as he did in an article at the weekend, that what is happening in the rail industry is nationalisation by the back door. That is not the case. It is not happening and, frankly, it is not constructive to suggest that it is.
    Secondly, there is a difficulty with some of the SRA's decisions. I am referring to the decisions on the west coast main line, Stagecoach and Virgin Trains. If it is true, as it appears to be, that Stagecoach and Virgin Trains have been allowed the sort of concessions that add up to a considerable amount of public money, we should have an explanation. In July, a public announcement followed an agreement with the SRA that £106 million would be given to Virgin—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady's time is up. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a nine-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
    5.57 pm
    Mr. William Hague: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I share one of her opinions at least—that the Queen's Speech is a strange mixture of measures. We all know what happens. There are months of negotiation between Departments to get measures into the Queen's Speech and then the day before the Queen delivers it the people in No. 10 sit down and say, "What on earth are we going to describe as the main message?" They say, "Well, there is one more Bill from the Home Office than from the other Departments, so this is a Queen's Speech about the criminal justice system." That is how it is spun out to the press and the media. In fact, it is a hotch-potch of different measures, as it often has been under Governments of many different complexions.
    I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister has just left the Chamber. When I was leading the Opposition I used to tease him every year about not having any legislation in the Queen's Speech. I used to tell him that doing nothing was not an option. Actually, I preferred him when he was doing nothing to when he is promoting the measures in this Queen's Speech, which will not advance the cause of effective government.
    I will make some brief general remarks and focus on reviving the rural economy, which is mentioned in the Opposition amendment. I came to the Chamber today in the naïve belief that when food, rural affairs and the environment are listed on the Order Paper, senior Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs might occasionally wander in and do a passable imitation of listening to the debate. It seems, however, that they are in touch with us from a remote location, or so we must earnestly hope.
    In general, the Queen's Speech will not advance the cause of delivering the Government's objectives of reforming the public services and demonstrating that

    549
    they have done so over the next few years, because they are not prepared to give the people who work in the public services the independence, the accountability, the local ownership of the problems or the challenges that they need to make those services effective. The Government will increasingly continue to be impatient.
    In the press, we are told that the Prime Minister is increasingly impatient for results. He will be more and more impatient as the next year goes by. The Government resemble somebody sitting in a car and pressing hard on the accelerator. They are making the fuel flow in terms of higher and higher public expenditure, but they are unable to understand why the vehicle does not go faster. The reason is that they have left the handbrake on—the control, centralisation and command approach to public servants which means that they will not deliver the desired results, nor will they have done so by the next general election.
    One great problem for the Government lies in the fact that in DEFRA no one is even pressing on the accelerator—which is why I am so sorry that no DEFRA Ministers are in the Chamber. Last week, the Department was criticised by an all-party Select Committee which pointed out that the rural White Paper was not being delivered, that the rural proofing of policies was not being attended to, and that the Department is suffering from reorganisation. No doubt, DEFRA is working hard but it has been reorganised.
    Once again, part of the Government machinery is suffering from the problem that people sitting in No. 10 Downing street decided that not enough was happening and the Government were not delivering enough results, so the answer was to reorganise Departments. In fact, the answer is hardly ever that Departments should be reorganised. All that happens is that brass plates move around Whitehall, people are reallocated, new titles are devised, new secretaries are appointed and the whole agenda is abandoned for another year.
    The tragedy is that that has so often happened in local government, too, under Governments of all persuasions, right back to the 1960s. This might make me seem like the ultimate Conservative, but if we still had urban and rural district councils and the ridings of Yorkshire I am not sure we would be worse off than we are at present—after 30 years of local government reorganisation.
    Lawrie Quinn: The right hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour up in the top corner, mentions rural district councils. He will know of the bitterness felt in Whitby, in my constituency, about what happened in 1974, and of the bitterness still felt throughout our county of North Yorkshire about the Banham review. How does he think such issues affect our locality?
    Mr. Hague: It is nice to wave to my neighbour across the Chamber and to agree with him. Obviously, we cannot go back to the 1960s structure of local government, but if we had never embarked on those changes the country would have been much better off. The same is true of more recent local government reorganisations.
    Why on earth are we contemplating yet another great reorganisation with regional assemblies on the agenda? People are already sick of elections yet they are now to
    550
    be presented with another set of elections, even if one layer of authorities is to be abolished. People in North Yorkshire will be told that they can elect a set of people in Leeds, but many of them will not vote; many will regard it as a joke. We have already seen a monkey elected mayor of Hartlepool because the electorate thought it was a joke—no doubt the Deputy Prime Minister would think that all sorts of strange creatures had been elected in Hartlepool in recent years. How many new sets of elections will we devise before we realise that the number of elections, authorities and structures is the problem in governing this country?
    Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case against democratic devolution. As a former Secretary of State, does he—and his party—plan to abolish the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Hague: It is no longer any good asking me about the policy of my party. I am now free to criticise anybody, abandon anything that I want to abandon and adopt the role of an embryo elder statesman.
    One argument against regional government is the quality of some of the debate in the Welsh Assembly. We all accept that the referendum took place. There is an Assembly and it will remain, most of us accept that: but has there been a dramatic improvement in the quality of debate or government? I am not sure about that.
    In the county of North Yorkshire, part of which I have the honour to represent, our problem is not a democratic deficit. We have local democratic institutions. We have our county and district councils. Why should we have more remote government? It already seems pretty remote. People in some of the dales in my constituency think that Northallerton is a long way away, let alone Leeds, Sheffield or Hull, which are somewhere down in the midlands as far as some of my constituents are concerned.
    Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hague: I will not give way again, because under the new modernised time limits I should lose the time that I have gained from the earlier two interventions. It is surprising how rapidly we get wise to such things.
    I implore Ministers to think again about local government and at least to allow counties that do not want to be part of a new regional structure a vote to express that. If we in North Yorkshire vote not to be part of a Yorkshire regional assembly, we should not have to be part of it. We do not need a regional assembly. We have a regional identity in Yorkshire, but it comes from our cricket team and our attitude and we shall keep both of them. We do not need an assembly.
    An assembly would also damage the prospects of the rural economy because the rural economy would not get a look-in under most of the regional assemblies that are being predicted, worked on and prepared for in the proposed legislation. I want to make some brief points about the rural economy in the time that remains.
    First, the difficulty of providing rural services should be fully taken into account in the new calculations of local government finance allocations. So far, that has not been done. The rural services partnership has made

    551
    some extremely good points. It is far more expensive to provide a small school in the Yorkshire dales, which may have only 20 pupils because it is miles and miles from anywhere, than to provide education in urban areas. That needs to be factored into the calculations for local government finance.
    If the Government decide to move more resources away from the shire counties over the next few months, every time the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about funding for this, that or the other, rural services will have been specifically and deliberately excluded and we shall point that out to people in rural areas.
    Secondly, I implore Ministers to give renewed and even more urgent attention to flood prevention. That is the ultimate local issue, because it affects some people hugely but others not at all. I have seen the severe problems caused by flooding in Northallerton and Middleham in the Yorkshire dales. One of the few little bits of reorganisation that should be allowed, as a tidying-up measure, would be to clarify who was responsible for flood prevention. Currently, central Government, the district authorities and county authorities, the internal drainage board, English Nature and the Environment Agency all have a role. If that could be simplified, we could tackle flood prevention much more effectively in future.
    Will Ministers give the necessary financial help? The budget was increased under the previous Government, and has been under the current one—I give them credit for that; it is needed for areas that have suffered badly from flooding during the past two years. Many of them, such as Northallerton, sadly, are in North Yorkshire.
    The final thing that DEFRA Ministers must do for the rural economy is to ensure that the measures being taken to try to prevent the return of foot and mouth disease are effective and workable. The 20-day movement restriction on animals is neither. It is not merely that it is an expensive burden—it is not effective.
    Last week I visited the auction mart at Hawes in Wensleydale, where I saw two sets of sheep standing next to each other, yet a farmer could take one set back to his farm but not the other. The restriction is not effective. I realise that it will be reviewed by February, but DEFRA needs to get on with that if there are to be effective domestic measures, in which people have confidence, to combat the spread of a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
    That is what the Government should be doing for the rural economy, not implementing a hotch-potch of measures that will shut it out of consideration in large parts of our local government in future. We needed a different Queen's Speech, which is why I support the Opposition amendment.
    6.9 pm
    Joyce Quin: I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and, indeed, to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I do not agree with his thesis that rural areas will be excluded from regional considerations. Indeed, I believe that regional assemblies can provide a very good focus to
    552
    show the links between rural and urban areas and to ensure that rural proofing becomes a reality, that rural concerns are fully integrated into regional approaches, and that farming, as well as rural industries generally, can benefit a great deal from the process.
    The measures in the Queen's Speech, including those being debated today, will be good for my constituency and the north-east of England. I was rather amazed to hear the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is no longer in his place, describe regions as being amorphous monstrosities. I can certainly tell him that the north-east is not an amorphous monstrosity; it is a region with a very distinct identity. I believe that it will be able to make great progress because of the measures contained in the Gracious Speech.
    I very much welcome the measures on housing, including those on improving housing standards and dealing with some of the problems in the private rented sector, which are considerable in my constituency. Proposals, such as those on licensing landlords, have been made strongly and convincingly by my own council in Gateshead—a very good council, which stands in stark contrast to the description of Labour councils given by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis).
    I am pleased that measures on antisocial behaviour will enable action to be taken against the menace of airguns and air weapons, which have been a scourge of my constituency, other parts of the region and, indeed, other parts of the country. I very much welcome the initiative that the Government are taking.
    I also welcome the fact that the Government are addressing the financial needs of local authorities. We in the north-east of England have suffered from the double whammy of the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated and the operation of the Barnett formula, both of which need to be fundamentally reformed. I am glad that the Government are certainly prepared to address the issue of council finance.
    I made my maiden speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech after the 1987 general election. I said:
    "I should like to see measures of devolution introduced for all the regions of the United Kingdom that want it. In the north, that would mean a regional assembly as well as a development agency".—[Official Report, 30 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 441.]
    Hon. Members will therefore understand that I am very enthusiastic about the Government's commitment to go down precisely that route, albeit that it is overdue. I believe that, in many ways, the measures could be strengthened. None the less, we ought to pay tribute to their commitment and, indeed, to that of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been a consistent advocate of regional government.
    In the debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred to regional government as being part of the good governance agenda, and I very strongly agree with that view. Devolution to the national territories—Scotland and Wales—as extremely important, but I have always felt that devolution should benefit all of us in the United Kingdom, irrespective of where we live. I am willing, however, to concede that there should be a large element of public choice in whatever structures are set up. For that reason, I very much welcome the fact that

    553
    referendums will be held only in those areas where a clear demand has been shown. None the less, I have always felt that the commitment to devolution in Scotland and Wales certainly required a framework to be established that allowed for similar reforms across the United Kingdom, and the Deputy Prime Minister has felt strongly about that for a very long time.
    I was disappointed by some of the criticisms that have been voiced, particularly by those of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. He tried to make respectable the fact that he wishes to deny a choice to the people in the regions. It makes no sense to deny that choice to people in the regions, and it will be difficult to explain to them.
    I do not believe that we are talking about an extra tier, which seems to be part of the wide criticism that has been made. We are talking about democratising an existing tier and giving its ownership to people in the regions. Ironically, that tier was set up to a large extent by the previous Conservative Administration. Surely, if the comments about giving people choice mean anything at all, giving people a sense of ownership of the institutions that already exist in their region makes a huge amount of sense.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The right hon. Lady says that something that already exists is being democratised, but what already exists is unelected and not welcomed by most people in those areas.
    Joyce Quin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. He seems to criticise not only what his own Government set up but any chance of anyone having a democratic involvement in and ownership of those institutions. I find his comments completely incomprehensible.
    I also find it rather odd that the move towards regional government is sometimes considered as something newfangled. I think that it was a Liberal Prime Minister, Gladstone, who first spoke in favour regional devolution, as well as home rule for Ireland and the other measures that are so well known from that time. At home I have a book on regional devolution that was printed before the first world war, and I know from looking at party archives in my part of the world that there has been a great deal of interest in the issue for many years. So it is not newfangled, but I am glad that, at last, it is being properly addressed.
    Obviously, the new devolved institutions are still establishing themselves, particularly in Scotland and Wales, but they have encouraged new people to become part of the political process. I very much welcome the greater participation of women, particularly in the Welsh Assembly, as well as in the Scottish Parliament.
    Overall, I should like to express strong support for the Government's measures on regional devolution. I am convinced that this is an exciting and long-overdue opportunity for people in regions such as mine—the north-east—and I look forward with enthusiasm and determination to campaigning for a positive vote in the referendum.
    6.17 pm
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin).
    554
    She and I were elected in the same year, since when she has been a consistent advocate of regional devolution. Although I have great respect for her, I will devote my remarks to trying to demolish her arguments, because we disagree on this issue.
    The House may like to recall the claims for regional devolution made by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in The House Magazine, dated 3 June this year. When writing about the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", he said:
    "The White Paper is fundamentally about bringing decision-making closer to the people, and making government more efficient and accountable. Having completed the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and brought back democratic city-wide government to London, we are now extending opportunities for devolving power throughout England."
    It should not be necessary in the House to make the point that the true tests of a democracy are its accountability and transparency. If constitutional change, devolutionary or otherwise, is to be introduced, it should be obvious that it must not be conducted piecemeal, since change to the constituent parts must inevitably affect the form and functions of the whole, sometimes unpredictably. At all times, the test of whether it enhances, and does not reduce, accountability and transparency should be applied.
    Jim Knight: The right hon. Lady talks about accountability and transparency, but would she describe the Government offices for the regions, which the Tory Administration set up, as being accountable and transparent? Is not the very good reason for introducing regional government the fact that regional quangos and government offices can be made genuinely accountable to the people whom they serve?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should not confuse administrative arrangements with quasi-political accountability. I hope that what I go on to say will convince him of the rightness of my argument.
    Let us consider the Government's record with regard to these tests. It is not only my opinion that the Government introduced sweeping devolutionary change for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with no thought for its effect on the parliamentary process, or on the constitution overall; it was the opinion of the Select Committee in its comments in July 1998. The Government followed a piecemeal approach to devolution, which, in the end, left a democratic deficit for England. In seeking—or so they say—to address that democratic deficit, they are again adopting a piecemeal approach whereby parts of the whole may opt for one structure, while others may prefer the status quo, which will be denied to them because of the decision of the others. As in national devolution, the effect of the decision of parts of the whole on the rest does not seem to concern the Government, but it should concern the House.
    Let us consider whether the results of a similar process for London have passed the Minister's tests. Have the devolved arrangements for London governance, in his words, brought decision making "closer to the people" and made Government "more efficient and accountable" and—I would add—transparent? Londoners voted narrowly in favour of an executive

    555
    Mayor and a Greater London Authority. It is worth reminding the House that the Act to enable those elections to take place, and other changes to be made, gave no fewer than 277 additional powers to the Secretary of State. So much for decentralisation of power. Let us allow that to pass, however, as worse is to come.
    What about transparency and accountability? Londoners are now asked to vote for borough councillors, two kinds of Assembly members, the Mayor of London, Westminster Members of Parliament, and Members of the European Parliament. They must also master the functions and responsibilities of the Government office for London, the London regional development agency, the London police authority, the fire and emergency planning commission and so on. Do those individuals, bodies and structures help Londoners when they want to report, and get something done about, a hole in the road? The answer is no. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Do Londoners think that London is run better as a result of having an assembly? Ask any cab driver—or anyone else—and close your ears to the language that follows. People see the increase in traffic jams, the snarl-ups on the tube, and the inexplicable street closures. What they do not see is who is to blame, as it is not clear. Not only have the twin tests of transparency and accountability not been enhanced by devolution, but because of the proliferation of politicians, bodies and quangos that have appeared in its wake, they have been further obscured.
    David Burnside: On the small point of the normal opinion poll of London cab drivers, does she agree that London cab drivers are very much in favour of the current Administration in London because of the disgraceful hike in fares after a certain time of night, which was imposed on London by the current Mayor?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman only travels late at night. It is true, of course, that that does bias cab drivers in the Government's favour. When daylight comes, however, and they see the snarl-ups and jams again, their opinion changes. The Government want to extend the principle to the rest of England, and that does not bode well.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. Surely the basic question is whether she accepts or rejects democracy. It is for the people to determine whether they want regional government in a referendum. Surely she must accept democracy.
    Mrs. Shephard: My test for whether democracy is effective is whether it is transparent and accountable. I am saying to the House, and directly to the Minister, that this pattern obscures accountability and transparency, and therefore obscures democracy, too.
    The Minister claimed in The House magazine of 3 June 2002 that the White Paper is relevant to all the English regions, because, regardless of whether people opt for regional assemblies, it proposes in any case to
    556
    enhance the role of regional chambers, devolve more powers to Government offices and give regions more say in the policy-making process. He calls that "extending opportunities". How have the precursors of those "opportunities" worked out so far? In the first instance, to give one early example, the East Midlands Development Agency included no representative at all from Lincolnshire, the only truly rural and largest county in the region. That did not bring the decision-making process very close to the people of Lincolnshire.
    Dr. Whitehead rose—
    Mrs. Shephard: In my region of East Anglia, it was only with the utmost difficulty that we managed to explain to the powers that be in the East of England Development Agency that the sugar beet industry accounted for some 10,000 jobs in Norfolk alone, and that any threat to its future as an important local product would have economic repercussions. The appointed EEDA chairman caused despair at an NFU meeting earlier this year when he explained that the agency's principal contribution to the prosperity of what he called "the sector" had been to make substantial grants for the marketing of pickled herring. The relevance of that claim to the situation of Norfolk farmers who have seen an income drop of 50 per cent. in the current year alone escaped all present.
    More recently still, this summer, an important local vegetable processor was threatened with closure and the loss of thousands of jobs, with the attendant effects on producers, packagers, labellers and hauliers. Thanks to the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is in his place, and with a little help from me, the situation was saved. Some days after the problem had been solved, we all received a letter from the East of England Development Agency, to tell us that they were on to the case. Small wonder that the agency's mere existence, where it is known, elicits a combination of disbelief and exasperation.
    Locally, therefore, the development agency—where anything is known about its work—has not covered itself with glory. Perhaps it has been given an impossible task, however. What, after all, does rural Norfolk have in common with parts of suburban Hertfordshire, and how does the Essex coast identify with Luton? Indeed, by seeking to overlay the eight administrative regions of England with a political identity, the Government are making a basic error. I do not know a lot about the south-west, but I wonder whether the people of Cornwall would welcome losing their identity and being ruled from Bristol. I know of few common causes between the Isles of Scilly and Tewkesbury. What common identity could one claim for the huge and disparate south-east, which ranges from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Wight? It is simply not possible.
    There are other deeper issues, however, concerning the electorate's sense of identity. The Government partly justified the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly by praying in aid the importance of sense of identity in Scotland and Wales, but they are now, apparently, trying to use the same arguments to submerge that same sense of identity in English counties. If the Government were logical in their

    557
    concerns for devolution, surely they should give the Cornish Celts their own Parliament, like the Scottish Celts and the Welsh Celts.
    If someone from a rural area is asked where they are from, how do they reply? Do they say that they are from the south-west or from Devon? Do they say that they are from the north-east or from Northumberland? County identity is strong, it represents people's sense of place and tradition, and it should also have an administrative and governance role that is not purely ornamental.
    Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: No, I will not give way any more.
    My next set of arguments concern the effects of piecemeal reform, which we have already seen in national devolution. It has simply not worked, and it has made more problems than it has attempted to solve. In proposing these changes, the Government will find themselves, in the end, with completely different kinds of local government across the country. Their wish to devolve power from the centre will result in confusion, heavy costs, administrative change for the sake of it, and, worst of all, obscured accountability and transparency—a denial of what democracy should be about.
    6.29 pm
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I particularly wish to welcome the measures in the Queen's Speech that are designed to enhance the process of democratic accountability in this country and to devolve power to its appropriate level. My hon. Friends have already mentioned them, but I am particularly pleased to see in the Queen's Speech a Bill to prepare for regional assemblies and a local government Bill designed to give local authorities more freedoms and more flexibility.
    This is not a mere academic issue. The centralisation of power in Great Britain has long been a wonder of the world. Yet a mature democracy needs to have its mode of governance at all levels working well, being held to account for the action of government at each level, and engaging the public in the process of accountability. That has spin-offs. Active healthy communities lead to better civil engagement, that leads to better government, and that leads to healthy communities. It is a real issue with real benefits. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill will bring that accountability to a tier of government that has long been the preserve of the quango and the ill-defined regional body. It will allow regions to speak up for themselves, and to engage in their own economic development and in the planning of how the regions work.
    The local government Bill will give local authorities greater freedoms to trade and use their own resources as they feel is most appropriate for their local circumstances. It will sweep away the machinery of central second-guessing about many things, such as the shape and the nature of a local authority's capital programme.
    Mr. Robert Syms: Many of my constituents in Poole work in Southampton, and they tend to look east towards Winchester and Hampshire. However, we are
    558
    in the south-west region, although many of us think that we should not be part of that. Does the hon. Gentleman have any sympathy for those of us who think that we are in the wrong region?
    Dr. Whitehead: Perhaps we can discuss the issue on another occasion, but I have some sympathy for that view.
    Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of this subject is much respected. We know that he is one of the architects behind the Government's White Paper. However, as he has already demonstrated sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), is he prepared to comment more generally on the settlement of the boundaries of regional assemblies? Does he believe that regional assemblies with their present boundaries are deliverable in the south-west?
    Dr. Whitehead: In the fulness of time, we could engage in a debate on how the boundaries in the south-west and the south-east might be formulated if and when a referendum takes place in those areas. That is my personal belief, but my personal belief only.
    The proposals will lead to real advances for local freedoms and for accountability. In the process, they redefine the relationship between the centre and the local. However, it is important that they are seen as milestones along the way, not as the end of the road.
    Regional assemblies have the potential to incorporate and place within the sphere of democratic accountability a range of regional bodies that administer substantial funds on behalf of the population, affecting the lives of people in those regions to a considerable degree. However, those bodies do not possess a shred of accountability through the democratic process for what they do. Contrary to what those on the Opposition Front Bench suggest, we are not talking in the main about new funds, but about the transfer of funds from the sphere of non-accountability to the sphere of accountability in the regional assemblies.
    I hope that the emergence of the regional assemblies across England will be followed by their establishment as a true repository of democratic accountability for regional decisions. The Bill paves the way for such choices to be made. Once that process is under way, a second Bill, setting out the powers and detailed arrangements for each assembly, will be necessary. I hope that the process of incorporating regional decisions into a framework of accountability is evident at that stage—sooner rather than later. I also hope that the powers acquired by those regions will be drawn down from the centre and not sucked up from the local level. We have that statement of intent in the White Paper on the regions, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reiterated it today. I am sure that the intention will become a reality.
    The Opposition have made much of the alleged "sucking-up" of powers that they consider will take place if counties, even after a popular referendum has been held, are in any way changed in function or even abolished as a result of the changes. I have to confess to smiling to myself when I see shire counties suddenly

    559
    reinvented as micro-level community champions, by councillors who previously did not have much time for that concept. I could understand it if the defence of counties as quasi-regional planning authorities were mounted, but that argument is, I guess, less cute and appealing. Therefore, we suddenly have counties as communities. What meretricious nonsense. A proper division between which level of government plans and which level of government provides local services would unerringly settle on districts and towns for the latter, and regions, and perhaps some counties, for the former.
    I am also wryly amused by the Opposition's sudden conversion to localism. As someone who spent many years trying to make a local council function for its communities in the face of unrelenting central diktats from the then Government, I hope that I will be forgiven my wry smile. What a localism we now see. According to the Opposition, local authorities should be able to decide whether to have any, some or no new housing in their area, and everyone else can go hang. The centre will hand the money out and shut up, and there will be a string of right-wing local soviets across the country.
    It is vital that we understand the proper relationship between the centre and the local. It must be one of spheres of, for example, national or regional responsibility for some framework decisions, and full trust in local government for other decisions. It must be a framework, not the mess suggested by the Opposition's plans—and the two Bills will add up to such a framework.
    There is a further consequence. Sooner or later, the centre will need to look at itself as the changes kick in. Let us look at the centre from the other end of the telescope, for example. Responsibility for local government and the presence of the state at local level is dissipated among a number of ministries, one of which—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—has some influence, but by no means a decisive influence. Education is in the hands of the Department for Education and Skills, which also oversees the unelected bodies providing for training and lifelong learning through the local learning and skills councils. Yet the local leader of the council will speak on education, along with his or her chair of education.
    Social services matters will also rank highly in the letters that the leader of a council receives. To obtain redress for the concerns raised in those letters, he or she must write not to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister but to the Department of Health. There is also the often vexed question of who collects the rubbish and what is done with it. Surely that is a very local issue, so is it not one that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should discuss with the local authorities? No. This time the route of dialogue is with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Of course, the rubbish bins in a block of flats might have been set alight by local hooligans, who might need a form of community remedy to require them to desist from such activity, and to occupy their time more positively. Is that a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? No. This time it is a matter for the Home Office.
    Local roads may need new signs to help the community to get about, and this time, it is a matter for the Department of Transport. Local people may be
    560
    concerned by the way in which local elections work and how they might help community involvement and communication. The obvious port of call in such cases is the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, in the recently published consultation paper on the way in which local government should be funded—and, if the enabling and supporting role is to be made real, how communities will be supported—the appearance is that everything is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, in reality, such a document has to be negotiated between four or five Departments—even if the Treasury's keen interest in the overall shape of the outcome is to be discounted for the moment. "Negotiated" might be a kind word to use, because the position of those Departments vis-à-vis local services and communities can amount almost to a veto.
    This state of affairs illustrates, as other ways of describing the situation could not, that there is an urgent need for the centre eventually to address its relationship with the local if we are to make anything like a reality of the new form of the centre-local relationships. Such a fractured system not only serves to dissipate and confuse the efforts of local communities and their elected representatives to work locally in a consistent manner, but seriously compromises the idea of anyone being seen to be accountable for what happens locally, and of communities being provided with straight answers when questions are asked. Now, it simply seems that the Department nominally responsible for local government is actually responsible for it.
    The Bill will help us down the road to recovery in the tortuous relationship between the centre and the local, and will go a long way towards building trust and confidence in that relationship. However, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there is a lot done, and a lot more to do.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I wish to speak about the rural economy, and in particular about the developing jobs crisis in the oil and fishing industries in Scotland. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is the Minister responsible for fishing, has returned to listen to my remarks from the biodiversity conference in Rio, where he has been toiling on our behalf, and at our expense.
    The indifference that the Queen's Speech shows to the major issues that I wish to raise reflects the indifference of the Prime Minister to the serious jobs crisis developing in Scotland. Tens of thousands of livelihoods are now at stake.
    First, however, I want to deal with the incredible speech by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). For the benefit of those fortunate enough not to have listened to it, let me set out what he said. He argued that London and Scotland have high unemployment and low growth because they have an Assembly and a Parliament respectively. The same logic applies to saying, "The cat sat on the mat, and as that animal sits on the mat, that animal must be a cat." It is, of course, total and utter nonsense.
    The London Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have been in existence for three years. No economist in the world—whether Austrian school, Keynesian, left-

    561
    wing, right-wing or somewhere in the middle—would attribute an impact on economic growth over three years to anything other than one of three things: fiscal policy, interest rate policy or exchange rate policy. Over a generation—or 10 years, perhaps—education, the labour market or the micro-economy might have an influence, but over three years, the factors would have to be interest rate policy, exchange rate policy or fiscal policy. Where are those three things controlled? Here. They are not controlled in the London Assembly, the Scots Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
    When the leader of the Conservative party was elected, I thought that the Conservatives had gone a long way towards reaching the bottom, certainly as far their ability to communicate was concerned. I now see that they had a lucky escape. Indeed, although the former leader of the Conservative party described himself as an elder statesman, on the evidence of other speeches, he should be the coming man—the young hopeful. He told me a few minutes ago that he was coming back; for a second I thought he meant to the Front Bench, but he meant to his seat at the back. The Conservative party is not going in the right direction if the speech by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is anything to go by.
    As for the developing crisis in the rural economy in Scotland, the crisis in oil jobs was manufactured in Downing street. I do not know whether No. 10 or No. 11 was responsible, but the oil industry in Scotland was looking forward to a substantial period of prosperity at the start of the year, until the tax change in the Budget. Even if we did not expect a boom, we went from expecting a period of sustained expansion to the drilling of a mere 12—one dozen—exploration wells in the North sea this year. That is the lowest total on record—less than half of last year's total, which itself was not a great year. The fundamental reason for that is the change in attitude and confidence as a result of misguided tax changes in the Budget.
    I did not mind the Government trying to reap some of the enormous assets that the harvesters of the North sea were themselves reaping. But if that is the strategy and the policy, there has to be a way to reward the new investors that we want to take over the assets and make the investments that the bigger established companies are not keen to make. I do not take sides with BP or Lord Browne when he argues about the Government's lack of consultation. Lord Browne's company does not consult local communities when it takes dire decisions that affect them, such as those made in my community recently and in the communities of other hon. Members.
    I want a coherent strategy for keeping the North sea show on the road and maintaining the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on it. If it can be argued that it is necessary to tax companies such as BP and Shell, which have grown rich on the back of North sea resources, it can also be argued that it is necessary to give the new incoming companies an opportunity to take over investments, and make the investments required to ensure the future of the North sea oil industry.
    Let me mention two or three ways of doing that. The North sea acreage is held by a few companies. Unless that acreage is relinquished to companies that are prepared to invest, nothing substantial will be achieved. Companies must use it or lose it. We must make it possible for people to invest in fields that other
    562
    companies want to abandon. I spoke to the company that has taken over the Argyll field, which was abandoned. It has invested in that field, which has a new lifecycle and a new name. The company told me that that was the 12th proposition it had made to a major company before any company would accept the idea. It should be part of the procedure for any company that wants to abandon a field to offer it to the marketplace three years beforehand, to see whether anyone wants to take it over.
    There should be an insurance system against abandonment. The new smaller companies cannot carry the same insurance liabilities as the older companies, which are not investing. The money that we give back to companies as a royalty rebate should be attached to future investment plans. Otherwise, the Government will end up giving back money to companies that will promptly spend it in west Africa or the Gulf.
    In addition, we need to get rid of the ridiculous situation that allows some North sea infrastructure assets and pipelines to be taxed at more than 70 per cent. Some are taxed at 40 per cent., and if a company takes gas to Zeebrugge in Belgium and then transports it over the interconnector, it will be taxed another 30 per cent. That is ridiculous. We need a coherent strategy, because thousands of jobs are at stake.
    Her Majesty's Government have been the biggest harvester of all in the North sea. They have reaped £150 billion, which is £30,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Those on the Conservative Front Bench should remember that next time they whine about Scottish public spending levels.
    A crisis is enveloping my constituency and those of many other hon. Members around the coastline of Scotland. The town of Fraserburgh has a 55 per cent. employment dependency on fishing. That means not just the people who catch or process fish. It covers all the jobs in the harbours, including electricians, plumbers, joiners, and those who work in ice factories. In Annan, the dependency is more than 30 per cent. In Oban, Kirkcudbright, Banff, Newton Stewart, Skye, Ullapool, the Western isles, Campbeltown, Argyll, Keith, Buckie, Berwickshire, the Shetland isles and Peterhead, which is also in my constituency, there is a dependency of 10 per cent. or much more. All those communities around Scotland face utter devastation in a crisis that, if it was not manufactured by the European Commission, is being made a great deal worse by it.
    It is extraordinary that any reputable group of scientists should propose that it is all right to take a million tonnes of sand eels out of the North sea, including a 50,000 tonne by-catch of quality fish, by fishing with a tiny mesh, while simultaneously proposing that there should be no fishing for human consumption in the same waters. I am sure the Minister will understand that, because he has often stood at the Dispatch Box to argue against industrial fishing in the North sea. The proposition is incredible. I want the Prime Minister to give priority to the fishing issue. If President Chirac faced the same crisis in the French fishing industry, he would bang the phones, making sure he mobilised European concerns.
    David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman break the habit of a lifetime? When he refers to the Scottish

    563
    industry in the North sea, will he add the west of Scotland fishing industry and the Northern Ireland fishing industry in the Irish sea?
    Mr. Salmond: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I appreciate his concern for the industry in Northern Ireland and around the coastline elsewhere.
    We need the Prime Minister to give priority to the issue. He will bang the phones for George W. Bush to deal with an international crisis. We want him to do the same thing for the fishing industry in Scotland, Northern Ireland and around the coastline. He should make it a priority, so that we no longer face the indifference of the highest office in the land.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The Queen's Speech is excellent. Having said that, there are some flaws in it, and I shall concentrate on three or four of the 19 Bills and three draft Bills announced in it.
    The Communications Bill is necessary. There is no doubt about that, because technology has moved on. Digital television and satellite mean that we need to change our practices, which is fine, although I am worried at the prospect of Channel 5 being purchased by, for example, Rupert Murdoch. That in itself might not seem a problem, but I am concerned about the future of ITV. Some people may say that that reflects normal competition, but I am sure that hon. Members need no reminding of the fact that ITV has to provide regional broadcasting. Channel 4 and Channel 5 do not have to do that. There is no doubt that a system in which a successful Channel 5 took revenue from ITV might cause the collapse of regional broadcasting.
    The area that I represent is covered by Border Television. We have very good regional television, so I hope that, when we come to the details of the Communications Bill, we will accept the need for some safeguarding of regional television. We should either say that international companies cannot buy Channel 5, for example, or require by mandate that those companies provide regional broadcasting. I hope that that point is not lost on the Minister.
    The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill is excellent and long overdue. I have been banging my head against a brick wall with regard to Cumbria county council for a while. I am not saying that just because a Conservative-Liberal alliance runs it, because similar problems have arisen in the past. Last week, at my local hospital, the Cumberland infirmary, there were 34 delayed discharges, the vast majority of them due to the fact that social services were not providing the resources to get people out of hospital and into nursing care or back home. That same hospital is cancelling operations because of a shortage of beds. I am sure that throughout the country social services look on someone staying in hospital for an extra fortnight as £400 a week saved. The expense goes on the NHS bill, not the social services bill. There is very little regard for the individuals who are imprisoned in hospital, but the practice saves money.
    Last year, the Government made a lot more extra money available to local authorities to help to get people out of hospital, and that worked for a while. If the
    564
    searchlight is turned on social services departments, they will respond, but as soon as that searchlight is moved, we are back to the bad old days. Given that nursing home owners in my constituency are telling me that they have vacancies and are in danger of going bankrupt while some of my constituents are imprisoned in hospital and others are having their operations cancelled because of the shortage of beds, something has to be done. The Government are completely right about that, and the sooner the Bill is introduced the better. I accept that more intermediate care beds might have to be provided; I do not think that that is an issue.
    I see no advantage to my constituents in the proposal for foundation hospitals. Our problem in what we call north Cumbria is that, of necessity, we have two different district general hospitals. They are 40 miles apart; one is in the Copeland constituency and one is in mine. There are not adequate resources for both hospitals. We need extra money because we need those two hospitals. Foundation hospitals will do nothing for my constituents, and I will find it very difficult going through the Lobby to vote with the Government on that.
    I come to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. I am in favour of regional assemblies; they are long overdue. I disagree with the Government about which region north Cumbria should be in. I strongly believe that we belong with the northern region. There is no argument about that; I am quite sure that that is the case. None the less, we hear comments such as, "There's no point in debating this because the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we are in the north-west." The boundary commission is to look at local government reorganisation. Why does it not take into account the views of people in the area? Then, if it is decided that we fall into the north-west region, fine. If that route is not taken, we will still have some disagreement.
    I worry about the fact that we will have to reorganise local government if regional assemblies are established. I say as a former chairman of Cumbria county council that we have been crying out for local government reorganisation regardless of regional assemblies. The two-tier system is not working any more. Representatives of senior businesses in my constituency are angry about the red tape. They tell me, "The county council does this, but the district council does that." We need reorganisation of local government regardless of regional government, and we need a unitary authority.
    It is nonsense for the Government to tell people, "Vote in a referendum for regional government and we'll get rid of your county council." My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) is present. The argument in Durham is about whether to preserve the county council, not about whether to have regional government. I hope that the Government will reconsider and decide that local government should be reorganised to form a single tier.
    Mr. Dawson: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend is saying, but is not the argument about regional government an argument about quality? Would not north-west regional government be more palatable to

    565
    the people of Carlisle if they felt that their region would be able to engage the whole of the north-west rather than being dominated by areas to the south?
    Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is wrong. I have nothing against the north-west region; my family originate from there. It just so happens, however, that the people from north Cumbria have always gone down the Tyne valley and never over Shap. Historically, that is where we should be.
    I am delighted that we are to have a Bill on hunting. As long as we can amend the Bill, I see no objection to it. I know that it will be argued in my area that fell paths should be retained, but in those areas they breed foxes to hunt, so it is not a matter of pest control.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my hon. Friend not a little disappointed, as I am, that the Government have not had the guts to put to the House the abolition of hunting with hounds, rather than the proposed gimmick of licensing or whatever?
    Mr. Martlew: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration, but we should not prejudge the Government. They have not come forward with a Bill at all yet. Perhaps they will surprise us—although perhaps not.
    The antisocial behaviour Bill will also be greeted with tremendous enthusiasm in my constituency. We must consider air weapons and fireworks, as both create considerable problems throughout the country. Recently, four swans were killed on the River Eden by somebody with an air weapon. The firework season now starts in September and goes well into January. Air weapons and fireworks have become far more powerful than they were when I was young. If we do not get legislation right this time and stop the antisocial behaviour of some, we will have to put the banning of fireworks and air weapons in the next Queen's Speech.
    Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the risk of abuse of fireworks and air weapons. Does he concede that the Government should look into the sale of BB guns, as a large number of injuries have been reported recently in my constituency resulting from the misuse of such so-called toys, which are sold to very young children?
    Mr. Martlew: New technology has taken over from the old spud gun that I remember well.
    The antisocial behaviour Bill will be excellent. My concern is that the police might not implement the law. In October, I wrote to my local police force pointing out that it is of course illegal to throw fireworks in the street. It is illegal to let them off in a public place. I accept the police's argument that the law is difficult to implement, but I want a clear law—if people misuse fireworks they should be brought to court or, even better perhaps, subject to a fixed fine. Without doubt, my elderly constituents are worried. I recently received a letter from a lady with a guide dog. She was concerned that she could not leave the house because the guide dog was terrified. I received—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up, I am afraid. I call the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).
    7 pm
    Andrew Selous: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate on the Queen's Speech, particularly given the quality of the contributions.
    Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I very much welcome the transport safety Bill. I commute into London from my constituency in common with many of my constituents, who travel from Leighton Buzzard station or elsewhere and will certainly welcome the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill may cover certain aspects of transport safety, but I am anxious that there is no mention at all of safety measures covering car drivers using mobile phones. I was a signatory to early-day motion 1108, which was signed by 128 Members. Our early-day motion stated that 17 deaths have been caused by drivers using mobile phones. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents says that using a mobile phone while driving is at least as dangerous as being over the limit. I therefore hope that the Government will consider including that in part 2.
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): May I ease the hon. Gentleman's concerns? The consultation document out at the moment points out that primary legislation is not required, as secondary legislation could cater for the problem if the consultation points to the need for action.
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that many hon. Members will look to the Government to make sure that that happens.
    It is the Opposition's function to point out urgent problems that have not been addressed in the Queen's Speech. The Government tell us that they are pro-business, but many businesses in my constituency have been badly affected or put out of business completely by the actions of the local highways authority and the Highways Agency. There have been roadworks in North street in Leighton Buzzard and in the High street in Houghton Regis. They are currently creating a severe problem in the High street in Dunstable. So far, two businesses have been bankrupted following works by the Highways Agency and, only weeks before Christmas, members of staff, many with children, have been laid off. Other affected businesses say that their weekly takings are down by £1,800 £3,300 and £4,500 respectively. The Highways Agency told us that the roadworks would take 14 weeks, but so far they have taken 23 weeks and will extend into the Christmas period.
    Like other hon. Members with similar problems in their constituencies, I am concerned that the highways authority and the Highways Agency are not liable for the loss of business in the locality. There is an inconsistency: under the Water Act 1989, compensation can be paid; under the Gas Act 1986, in which a time limit is specified for roadworks, compensation can be paid; and the same is true of the Land Compensation Act 1973. At the very least, we need an assessment of the impact on businesses of roadworks that can put traders out of business. In my constituency, for example, pubs have not been able to get deliveries of beer. Penalty clauses apply to contractors and only benefit the

    567
    Highways Agency—they should also benefit affected traders. There is a good case for a reduction in business rates where an independent audit clearly shows that businesses are thousands of pounds a week down. I am sure that many hon. Members will have come across similar problems created by major roadworks in their constituencies.
    I want an end to the linkage of funds for urgent non-controversial works such as road repairs and basic environmental improvements to the local area's acceptance of other transport spending which is unwelcome, unwanted or extremely controversial. That undermines local democracy—councillors may have stood for election opposing certain schemes only to be told that their area could be denied millions of pounds for desperately needed road improvements unless they accept that funding. In my constituency, for example, the Translink scheme, a light busway between Luton and Dunstable, is bitterly opposed by many people and Dunstable town council. However, we were told that if we did not vote for it locally my constituency would be denied a lot of money.
    We have been told that unless we accept the "green wave" works on the A5 through Dunstable, which are putting many traders in my constituency out of business, the much needed bypass to the north of Dunstable and Houghton Regis could be endangered by the Government. That shows no respect for local people—there are no grounds for that linkage of funds, and each case should be judged on its own merits.
    As for planning, the removal of county structure plans will create a serious democrat deficit in regions that do not vote for regional assemblies. I listened carefully to the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave one of my colleagues, but I was not enlightened. The eastern region, of which my constituency is part, is the least likely in the United Kingdom to vote for a regional assembly. If the county structure plan, for which there is at least accountability through county councillors, is taken away, the regional development agency or some other body in Cambridge will assess our needs through regional spatial strategies—my constituents will not regard that at all favourably. I should be grateful for an assurance that the people of my region will not be blackmailed and told that they will be denied funds unless they vote for a regional assembly, as that would be extremely underhand.
    A major review of airport capacity is taking place throughout the country. It is extremely important to acknowledge the quality of life of people who live close to airports. My constituency is much affected by aircraft traffic from Luton airport—it is the dominant issue for people in Studham, Whipsnade and Kensworth. Luton airport currently deals with 6 million passengers a year but under the proposals, that figure could be increased to 31 million—a huge expansion. I have severe doubts that our transport could cope with that, as the area is already extremely congested. The M1 is regularly blocked and the promised rail improvements have not materialised, so there are great concerns. There are also specific concerns about Luton, as it is not a designated airport, so is subject to lighter regulation, especially of night flights.
    568
    The local airport consultative committees are completely unable to influence anything that airports do. That is an affront to local people. The committee is the one body through which they can take the airport to task, yet it is not listened to. We need to give airport consultative committees considerably more teeth to do the job that local people want them to do. We need independent, unannounced audits of the environmental impact of airports if the monitoring of airport noise and nuisance is to be credible. European directive 2002/30 dealing with airport noise seems to continue the distinction between designated and non-designated airports, which is a great concern to people who live in the area around non-designated airports.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome most of the measures in the Queen's Speech. I begin by drawing attention to the antisocial behaviour provisions. Earlier this year, I called on the House to toughen the legislation in that respect. It is one of the most difficult problems with which hon. Members have to deal in their constituencies, and the extra powers that the police and local authorities are to be given should be warmly welcomed.
    I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the problem of fireworks as one aspect of antisocial behaviour. I have had more letters on that subject this year than ever before. It seems to be becoming a much bigger issue. A total ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public would cause difficulties—there is always the danger of creating a black market—but we must legislate to restrict the sale of fireworks to certain times of the year, probably to allow only designated retailers to sell them, and to stop the sale of the largest and loudest fireworks. We should also roll out the pilot scheme currently under way in four police authorities, with on-the-spot fines for the improper use of fireworks in public places.
    I shall spend the rest of the short time available to me considering the proposals for local government, planning and housing. We should not overestimate the total effect of the proposed local government Bill. I welcome many aspects of it, but the idea that it will completely change the balance between central and local government is an overestimate, which does not do it credit. There are some worthwhile measures in the Bill. It is a series of small steps in the right direction.
    I welcome the introduction of prudential guidelines for local authority borrowing. I and others in local government, as I used to be before I came to this place, argued for that 20 years ago. I never thought that any Government would have the courage to do that, and I am pleased that it is a Labour Government who are doing it.
    I welcome the proposals to free up local authorities' ability to trade. Of course, they should not be subsidised in that trading to do down firms in the private sector, but when a local authority goes in to install central heating in five local authority homes in a block of flats, the fact that it cannot also put central heating in for an owner-occupier there who may want that service, because that would count as trading, has always been nonsense. The measure in the Bill will allow such a problem to be sorted out. I welcome the changes to council tax benefits, as a response to the "daylight robbery" campaign. They are good and positive proposals, as well.

    569
    I welcome the review of the overall balance of funding between what local authorities can raise for themselves and what they get from central Government. That is the key issue. We will not have true local democracy and proper local government freedom until we alter that balance substantially. The fact that local authorities can raise only 25 per cent. of what they spend from local sources is a real constraint on that freedom, and the problems of gearing are well documented and well known.
    I must say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the fact that the Government have ruled out the transfer of the business rate back to local authorities puts them in a very difficult position. I am not sure what other big idea is around to significantly shift that 25 per cent. of funding controlled by local authorities up towards 50 per cent. or more. Without the transfer of the business rate, I do not know how that will be achieved, but I look forward to the outcome of the review.
    During this Parliament, we will see a change to the way in which the resources that come from central Government to local government are distributed. I shall make one brief comment on that. Some of us feel that the area cost adjustment has been extremely unfair and has discriminated against our local authorities for many years. I say to the Government that we are not against the principle, and recognise that in some parts of the country local authorities must pay more for staff because of local market conditions. I am quite prepared for an element of grant to be paid to authorities in the south-east to reflect the fact that they have to pay more for certain public sector workers. That is fair enough.
    What I do not accept, and what I have not heard a justification for, is the idea that that area cost adjustment should reflect pay levels in the private sector, which have nothing at all to do with local authority responsibilities or costs. The fact that chief executives in London are paid a lot more than chief executives in Sheffield—I am speaking of the private sector—is no reason for London authorities to get extra grant to reflect that, because it is not a real cost for them.
    David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is a justification for an increased level of grant within certain parameters for the south-east, to reward the people of Hertfordshire with a standard spending assessment that gives them 13 or 14 per cent. more per school pupil than the people of Leicestershire, which is right at the bottom of the county league table, is probably excessive?
    Mr. Betts: I well understand those problems, and we can draw similar comparisons between northern authorities. Clearly, there are particular elements of any change that I would want to examine closely, such as the area cost adjustment. Overall, a comparison must be made between the amount of grant that children in neighbouring and similar authorities get from central Government for their education. That must be seen to be fair and reasonable in order to convince the public, who do not understand the arcane intricacies of the grant system, that they are getting a fair deal in their own local authority.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Does he accept that
    570
    about 85 per cent. of the budget of the average school goes in teachers pay, that teachers pay is set nationally, and that outside London, that pay is likely to be equivalent, whether we are talking about the south-east, his area or mine in Cornwall?
    Mr. Betts: I understand that issue very well. I come back to the point that any grant to reflect the extra amounts that particular authorities have to pay should be based on the realities of the situation, not on some general and philosophical formula that does not relate to the real costs that local authorities face.
    On the planning proposals, I welcome many aspects of the planning Green Paper and the Government's response to the Select Committee's investigation. We need more resources to speed up the planning process. The fact that local authorities are dealing with the same number of applications as they were five or 10 years ago with fewer staff is a credit to them. They need more resources, and the Government will provide them. As well as quicker planning decisions, we need better planning decisions. I therefore welcome the proposals to improve pre-application consultation and to issue proper guidelines for consultation. The days when notices were stuck 30 ft up a telegraph pole should be at an end.
    I welcome the proposal that the length of time for which a planning permission is valid should be cut from five years to three years, in general. I also agree that planning consents should not automatically be renewed, so that when planning guidance is changed, extant planning permissions do not undermine its effect for years to come.
    My one worry is still the local development framework, and whether it will really be clearer and simpler to understand and allow quicker decisions than the unitary development plan system. The development plan system has been implemented far too slowly. Government could have insisted that it be speeded up. My worry is that if we replace a plan—a physical document indicating what development will be allowed on what sites in a particular area—with numerous written criteria and with some plans for development areas, some for conservation areas, some for greenbelt areas and some for proposed housing schemes, and that lot must be put together, I am not sure that the lack of an overall, written, laid down plan which the public and developers can see will lead to any greater certainty. In fact, it might lead to more confusion.
    I know that the Government have said that under the new local development framework arrangements, authorities will be able to draw up a whole plan for their area, but they will not be compelled to do so. The certainty of having a plan is better for developers and for communities, who can see what sites in their area might be used for in the future. I am sure that we will return to the matter when we discuss the proposal in more detail.
    Finally, on housing, I welcome the proposals for the draft Bills. For years, some of us have argued strongly for an end to the squalor and appalling conditions of many people living in houses in multiple occupation. It is right that we should have a proper system of control. I look forward to those proposals, and also to the

    571
    proposals to license landlords in the private sector in areas of housing need, where there are real housing problems.
    Let me raise a matter mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister. I welcome the Government's commitment to decent homes standards in council housing, but they must find resources to ensure that those standards are met irrespective of whether tenants vote for stock transfer. Tenants in Sheffield are bitterly opposed to it, and the proposed scheme did not meet the Government's requirements and did not add up financially anyway; but we must find resources enabling tenants who want their homes to remain in council ownership to have the same rights as those who vote for stock transfer. That is very important to my constituents.
    I look forward to the hunting Bill, although I am sorry to learn that the Government may introduce a licensing system. I will not vote to license hunts so that every time a fox is torn apart by a pack of hounds, that happens with the approval of Members of Parliament. I have always voted for a complete ban, and I look forward to doing so again in the near future. I trust that the will of the House will prevail.
    7.21 pm
    Dr. Richard Taylor: It is an honour to follow the many illustrious Members who have spoken. Although I cannot manage without notes I will not be reading my speech, because my writing, like that of many members of my profession, is not particularly legible.
    I could not attend the health day debate because, along with other Members, I was visiting the north of England, so I shall devote some of my precious time to health issues. First, however—at the risk of sounding a fearfully discordant note on both sides of the House—I want to say a word about hunting. My constituency, which is split between a rural area and several urban areas, contains three groups: those who are ardently in favour of hunting, those who are ardently against it, and what I consider to be the large majority who wonder what the fuss is all about. I cannot summarise that better than by quoting a columnist who recently described the hunting Bill, in one of the broadsheets, as
    "an illiberal interference with other people's weird pleasures that will waste political energy".
    I think everyone will welcome the establishment of the railway accident investigation branch, but my constituents will want more. They will want measures to improve railway services. When I travel down to London, it is very common for one or other train to be delayed, and the excuses given are farcical—congestion, for instance, on a line that is lucky to carry two trains a day. Surely the Government could do something about at least one cause of delay. It is inexcusable not to provide a spare guard or driver in order to prevent trains from being delayed owing to the lack of a crew member: that should be illegal.
    Few people in my part of north-west Worcestershire support the development of regional governance. I remind the Government of what was said by Lord Falkland, a loyal royalist who tried to moderate Charles
    572
    I—obviously without much success—and whom I consider to have originated the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it". What he actually said was
    "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
    Raising the subject of local government allows me to turn to that of health. I feel that only one part of the system is being blamed for the imposition of charges on social services departments for delayed discharges. The national health service may be at fault, and indeed is at fault on many occasions. I know of an 81-year-old lady who went into hospital. Although her treatment finished after five days, she was in hospital for three weeks and two days because no effort was made to engage in discharge planning. I could also give examples of inappropriate admissions that could have been avoided. Patients themselves have wondered why they have been kept in hospital. The situation has not been helped by inappropriate hospital reconfigurations, and I think that the failure to develop intermediate care services is the fault of the NHS rather than that of social services departments. The charges drive a wedge between social services and health departments, which are bound to compete in passing charges from one side to the other. We should be aiming for closer partnerships.
    Let me make two general points about the NHS. First, like most people, I support the Government's extra funding coupled with reforms, but I do not think it profitable for the Government to dwell on the official Opposition's failure to support extra health spending. That, in my view, has devalued questions to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Secondly, the public know that vast sums are being poured into the NHS and are tremendously pleased about it, but they expect instant improvement. Last week, the Secretary of State himself said
    "although there is progress, there is a long way to go."—[Official Report, 14 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 167.]
    I wish, in a way, that he had been even more open, admitted to the huge deficit mentioned in the Wanless report, and conceded that initially extra money would be devoted to paying existing debts.
    My local primary care trust is battling to manage debts and elements of inflation—in particular, a 15 per cent. rise in prescribing costs. By the end of the current financial year, the three primary care trusts in my county will have a deficit of some £8 million. That is a relatively small proportion of their total budget, but when primary care trusts—as health authorities were—are already being violently squeezed by economies, it is impossible for them to produce the improvements that people expect. I would have liked the Government to explain that money is being spent, that the backlog is being attacked, but that there will not be improvements just yet.
    The nationwide debt arouses several suspicions. There is, for instance, the suspicion that extra sums that should have been earmarked for such purposes as the cancer plan are simply being swallowed up by debt. There is the suspicion that emphases on national service framework are penalising conditions to which no such framework applies. There is the suspicion that drugs and treatments approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are leading to a reduction in resources for other well-established, standard treatments.

    573
    I will not mention all the aspects of foundation hospitals that worry Members who fear that they will turn the NHS into a two-tier system, because they have been emphasised enough already. It is too early to be over-critical of the proposals, because we are waiting for a detailed prospectus. I welcomed devolution to primary care trusts, so in principle I welcome the devolution of powers to local people, allowing them to own and manage their hospitals; but a criticism of which we have not heard much so far is that foundation hospitals could well drive a wedge between primary and secondary care.
    My criticism of primary care trusts is that there is relatively little consultant input; my criticism of foundation hospitals is that there is likely to be very little GP input. I would have liked to think that hospitals and primary care could be welded together somehow, as that would enable more treatments to take place in primary care and fewer in hospitals.
    Another fear about foundation hospitals that has not been properly addressed concerns emergency care. It will be easy for foundation hospitals to cope with elective work. Will they also be able to cope—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome much of what is in the Queen's Speech, in particular the opportunity that it gives us finally to decide on hunting with dogs. That issue has dragged on for far too long. Many Labour Members at least will welcome that opportunity.
    I want to address my remarks to regional government and local government and the Bills on those. I particularly welcome the opportunity that people throughout the country will have to vote on regional government. Our country is diverse: it has many different cultures, needs and resources. One needs to consider only one aspect, housing, and compare the north-west with the south-east to see how diverse the cultures and needs of two regions can be. Far too much of the governing of this country is centrally controlled, with Whitehall, which in effect means civil servants, taking decisions that should be taken at a much more local level.
    Opposition Members who oppose that have tried to portray the issue as being about local identity. That is nonsense. It is not about local identity—the people of Scotland and the people of Wales had clear identities long before they had their Parliament and Assembly. It is about a constitutional settlement and about bringing the governing and governance of our country much closer to people in their particular regions.
    Government offices were set up by the Conservative party when it was in power. I went to the Government office for the north-east when I was on the Public Administration Committee. The offices do an excellent job but see themselves as representing the Government in the regions, not as the region's voice in Government. They see themselves as being answerable to Whitehall and central Government, not to the people in the regions whom they are meant to serve.
    The offices are not accountable to those regional bodies. They make decisions about resources and where they will go in the regions, yet the people in the regions
    574
    cannot hold them to account; the democratic ability to achieve accountability is not there. Regional government is important.
    Mr. Syms: When England play football, my constituents cheer them and I am sure the hon. Gentleman's constituents do, because we are English; there is a bond there—rather more of a bond than most of my constituents feel for the south-west or, I suspect, some of his constituents feel for the north-west.
    Mr. Turner: I am not sure what that means. We do not have a north-west football team or a south-west football team, but when Lancashire plays Yorkshire in rugby league the people of Lancashire and the north-west support the red jerseys of Lancashire, as opposed to the white jerseys of Yorkshire. There is that regional identity in rugby league. Of course, Lancashire always wins, which is even better.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that civil servants were not the region's voice in Government, but what does he think Members of Parliament are elected to be; and does he not think that civil servants are accountable—they are accountable to their Ministers and then Ministers are accountable to the House?
    Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I remember having to go to speak to the Minister for Transport about an important issue in my constituency: a sub-regional road that I said should be built. I had to explain to him in great detail what that was all about. That kind of detail would not have had to be explained if the person responsible were a member of a regional assembly, because he would be aware of what was happening in the region and able to make those decisions by consulting not a Whitehall civil servant but a north-west civil servant.
    That is what we are talking about when we talk about regional government. It is about ensuring that the democratic accountability of the civil service is much closer to the people and the decisions that are necessary for communities in the regions. It is important that we understand that what we are talking about here is not a new level of democracy and a new tier of government but replacing the counties with government in the regions and making the existing bureaucracy accountable through the democratic process. Whitehall is inflexible. Being hidebound, it has difficulty meeting the needs of local and regional communities. That is why it is important that we have regional government.
    I am sure that the referendums will be successful in the north-west, as they will be in the north-east, with possibly Yorkshire and the west midlands following shortly after, but I am a little concerned about some of the phrasing that I have heard: that we will get the Bill "when parliamentary time allows". It is essential that the two follow one another very quickly: that after Ministers have passed the Act to set up the referendums, it will be followed very quickly by the Act to set up the regional assemblies.
    I was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that what we are talking about is ensuring that there is a transfer of powers from central Government to

    575
    regional government, not a transfer up from local government. That is an essential part of the proposals. It is about devolved powers from the centre to the regions and ensuring that accountability is at the lowest possible local level.
    I turn to the second Bill. Criticisms have, rightly, been made that its proposals are timid. That needs to be addressed. I hope that the Bill will include provision for a statutory instrument to transfer further powers down. I understand why the Government are a little wary of passing too many powers straight away. They want to ensure that regional government is successful, properly accountable, effective and efficient, but once regional government has proven that it is, I hope that some form a statutory instrument will allow further powers to be passed down, where appropriate—in tertiary education, strategic health, regional transport and so on—without further primary legislation.
    I welcome the powers that will be extended to local government by the Local Government Bill. Revaluation was promised; it is important that we have that. If local government is to be successful, it must have a buoyant tax base. I suggest that having a 10-year revaluation would not be not appropriate. I ask the Government to consider having an interim five-year regional percentage increase in the tax bands, and a proper revaluation every 10 years, so that we can iron out the anomalies.
    One of the problems is that a millionaire living in a mansion will pay only three times more council tax than someone living in a £30,000 terraced house. That is ridiculous.
    Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Turner: Yes, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to be quick as I have used up my extra time by taking two interventions.
    Norman Lamb: Would the hon. Gentleman reach the conclusion that council tax should be abolished and replaced by a local income tax, which is a progressive tax based on the ability to pay, such as applies nationally?
    Mr. Turner: If I went down that road, a whole new debate would open up, so I say merely that I do not agree that an income tax for local government should be introduced. It may be an interesting issue for regional government but not for local government.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said from a sedentary position earlier, we should widen tax bands much more greatly. One of the other things that we need to examine closely is the weighting that is attached to each of the individual bands. As I have said, there is only three times the difference between the lowest and the highest council tax, which cannot be right.
    One of the criticisms that was rightly made about the rateable value system was that it was grossly unfair. If we do not take the opportunity of examining both widening the bands and changing the weighting within those bands, the council tax system will be seen as being more and more unfair.
    576
    When the Government look at the local government Bill, I hope that they will take the opportunity to ensure that they do not merely revalue the existing bands, but that they widen them and tackle the weighting problem. If they can do that, along with giving local government wider powers and a greater ability to trade and to raise charges, it will be the better for it. I welcome those proposals, along with those relating to regional government. If we can implement them, we will have a better overall system of government.
    7.40 pm
    Sue Doughty: This is a welcome opportunity to talk about some of the issues that have arisen from the Gracious Speech, and some which are missing. I am sorry that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not here this evening, because the Gracious Speech does include environmental legislation such as the water Bill and the waste emissions trading Bill. The water Bill has been a long time coming. Its aim—to manage the abstraction of water—is very welcome. Some 152 wildlife sites of national importance in England could be damaged by water abstraction, and we need to recognise the importance of our wetland heritage.
    The proposals could have gone much further, however. On this occasion, I agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that nothing has been included to address flood management and prevention. A Bill that included such measures—along with marine habitats legislation, which was lost at the end of the previous Session—could have provided a comprehensive approach to water management and river basin management. Responsibility could have been allocated, so that we could tighten up our handling of this important problem.
    There is nothing wrong with the concept of the waste and emissions trading Bill, but the Government rushed it through the Lords last week, even though we are expecting an imminent announcement on waste from the strategy unit. It would be much better to examine that legislation in the context of the strategy unit's comments, rather than picking off a single aspect of waste management. We need to understand what is happening.
    I welcome, however, the proposals on waste trading that deal with the question of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfills. As recently as last week, when efforts were made in Guildford to separate garden waste at source for recycling, rather than sending it to landfill, Conservatives said, "No, we don't want this scheme." They would not even allow us to discuss how it might be funded. Disgracefully, they got Labour support because, for some curious reason, the Conservatives said, "We don't want the Liberal Democrats to add that to their recycling figures." Next, they will criticise us for our recycling figures. That is the way it goes.
    We also need a clear definition of what recycling rates really mean. Do they mean what we collect for recycling, or what is actually sent for recycling? So often, householders complain to us, "I fear that, in the end, what I put in my green box will be sent for landfill." We need clear standards and definitions. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to examine the

    577
    European Committee for Standardisation's draft definition of recycling, so that we can compare how we perform not only within this country, but across Europe, according to internationally agreed standards. We can go a lot further in this regard.
    I turn to the problems associated with living in the south-east. Those of us who represent constituencies in the south-east often wonder why the Government have it in for us. The concept exists that we must all be fearfully rich because we live in the south-east, but that is not true of teachers, policemen, or those who work in administrative jobs in the region. Yet underpinning the proposals for Government funding in the south-east is the assumption that, for some reason, teachers do not have live in the expensive houses that we have in the region. Such an assumption would explain why we do not get decent allowances for teachers living in the south-east. Every child in the region knows what it is like to have a good teacher who moves away once they have acquired two or three years' experience. Year on year, there is a 25 per cent. churn of teachers leaving Surrey for jobs outside the county. The situation is similar with the police: officers are leaving either for cheaper areas, or for London. Yet the figures for local government funding, and for national funding for the police, ignore the fact that ours is an expensive area. The attitude is, "You are doing badly now, but by the time we have finished with you, you'll be doing even worse." We in Surrey expect the police to be able to look after us, yet the funding will reduce policing to an unacceptable level.
    On social services, as I have said before, I have never been given a satisfactory answer as to why funding for older people in Surrey is much lower than elsewhere, even though people live longer in counties such as ours. Just because people live longer, it does not mean that they are sprightly to the end of their days. They have their needs, yet funding for them is penalised. Where do the Government think that social services are going to put older people? There is constant underfunding, and the threat of fines. Social services can pay only £480 a week for a place in nursing home accommodation, yet the likely charge in Surrey will be £840 a week. There are precious few places for people. We do not want to incarcerate people in acute wards; we want them to receive appropriate care. However, the Government have done nothing to generate the care home and nursing home places that we need.
    I turn to the scandal of the 49 delayed discharges at the Royal Surrey County hospital. Of those 49 delayed discharges, 17 were awaiting funding. Eleven were funded, but there was no place for them to go to. Fines will not help that situation, but a realistic approach from the Government might.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she accept that the guaranteed 6 per cent. real-terms increase in social services funding over the next three years will do something to address the problems that she highlights?
    Sue Doughty: In fact, that 6 per cent. real-terms increase will come off the other end—through the money that goes to the county council—so we will not see all of that increase. We have been working hard
    578
    within the NHS, and with social services, to invest wisely the additional Government funding that we have received: in the provision of care places, and in training people to provide care of home. With respect, that 6 per cent. will have to go a long way before it deals with the problems that I am outlining. Too much of my surgery time is taken up in dealing with these issues. It is not a question of social services failing, as has been suggested in respect of some areas; they are being run ragged trying to secure those places. They are working with the NHS, but they are not succeeding.
    The Gracious Speech makes no reference to one of the saddest issues that I have to deal with. In that sense, the Speech offers no cause for hope. Last month, I had the honour of attending the official opening of Christopher's, a hospice for life-limited children from counties surrounding Guildford, and from south-west London. If it were not for the shortage of time, I could talk at length about the wonderful work that it does looking after children—and their families—at this particularly difficult, final stage, and even afterwards. The things that it achieves are truly breathtaking. Christopher's was built with lottery money and funds raised privately; it certainly was not built with any NHS money. It has to pay for services that it receives from the local primary care trust. It has a wide catchment area, and there is only a small number of children in each of the PCTs, so it does not figure at all in budget lines. When I raised that point with the then Minister earlier this year, I was told that the cause of children's hospices would be picked up by the national service framework for children. Even so, the cause of life-limited children is simply tacked on to that of children with disabilities. Their numbers are small, and they do not figure sufficiently.
    Children's hospices do not expect the NHS to pick up the bill—that is the nature of the hospice movement, and children's hospices are no different. However, the cost of the necessary medical care at Christopher's—the nurses and doctors—is about £300,000 a year. It should not be paid for by fundraising. Medical staff should be paid for through the NHS. It is a simple problem to solve and capping could be put in place. We need more Government support.
    Mr. Dawson: Does not the hon. Lady think that she is a little too quick to dismiss the national service framework for children when it has not yet been published? Would not it be more advisable to communicate her concerns about the issue to Professor Aynsley-Green who is preparing the framework?
    Sue Doughty: I am disappointed to hear that intervention. This issue has been rumbling around for some years and has been raised by the all-party group on hospices and the Chase Children's Hospice Movement. Hospices need to plan their finances and they need to be able to budget. Despite going to see the Minister and visits with Government representatives, I am sorry to say that we have seen nothing. We thought that we might see something from the cancer cash, but fortunately, owing to improvements in cancer treatment for children, only 8 per cent. of childhood deaths are from cancer, so that will not be a source of money. The subject needs serious consideration and I look forward

    579
    to the national service framework, because we need to see a commitment to the treatment and care of children in hospices.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Wayne David: I welcome Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech. As we have heard, its emphasis is very much on crime and antisocial behaviour. I welcome that, because every week constituents from some of the poorest parts of my constituency attend my surgery to complain about antisocial behaviour. I am particularly pleased that there will be measures to control airguns. I recognise that there are many other important measures in the speech, not least those on devolution, on which I wish to concentrate in my speech.
    The Gracious Speech refers to a new Bill for health services in Wales. The Bill is significant because the Welsh Assembly proposed it. It has been debated in this House in pre-legislative form, but the ideas came from Cardiff, and that is important in constitutional terms.
    The Gracious Speech promises legislation for referendums in English regions where there is deemed to be a demand for devolution. I welcome those measures because my interest in devolution goes back many years. I remember the alternative regional strategy, which was proposed in 1982 by the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). In the 1990s, I remember Bruce Millan, a former Secretary of State for Scotland and European Commissioner, coming up with ideas through the Labour party's regional policy commission. I recognise that the recent White Paper and the reference in the Queen's Speech is the culmination of many years' work.
    As well as the debate that has been taking place in England and on a United Kingdom basis, we have also seen the fruition of debates in London, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. If devolution is good enough for Scotland and Wales, it should be good enough for the English regions. I say that because I do not believe that devolution is about nationalism; I believe that it is about democracy. Speaking as a Welsh Member, I believe that the Welsh Assembly has been a success. Some people might say that there were one or two hiccups at the beginning, but very few people now doubt the value of its existence. It has become the focal point of Welsh politics and is being seen increasingly as an example of good practice for other parts of the United Kingdom to emulate.
    It is notable that both Wales and Scotland have unitary systems of local government. That seems to be the natural way forward when there are regional tiers of government. That is a logical proposal that was aired in the White Paper. We should also recognise that some hon. Members have expressed concern that devolution to the English regions might mean a loss of powers for local authorities. We should look at the evidence. That has not happened in Wales. In fact, we have seen a strong and constructive partnership between the Welsh Assembly and local authorities; they work well together.
    As I have said, the rationale for devolution is democracy, but I believe that a further strong argument in favour of devolution is the economic imperative.
    580
    Over the past 20 years, we have seen widening disparities between different regions of the United Kingdom. Labour Members recognise that there is a need for a strong regional policy. We do not want the type of regional policy that we have had in the past, with winning companies being picked out or benevolent civil servants deciding in London what is best for the regions. We want a regional policy that is rooted in the regions and is developed according to specific needs and specific circumstances.
    We should take note of what has happened in many European regions over the past 20 years. It is no accident that some of the most prosperous and dynamic European regions have strong, proactive regional administrations.
    Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that sub-state legislatures across Europe and Governments tend, universally, to have more powers than either the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament? If he concedes that, will he mention one power that the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament has to end the relative economic decline of Wales and Scotland, compared to other parts of the UK?
    Mr. David: Across Europe some legislatures have more powers and others do not. It is difficult to come up with a mechanistic formula and say that it is simply cause and effect. What we see in many European regions is a focus for their identity. We see a lever at regional level that provides a focus for the effective development of new partnerships.
    Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman referred to European regionalisation. I am sure that he will have noticed that appendix E of the White Paper provides a number of examples, all of which demonstrate variable geography and variable geometry? He mentioned identity. To what extent does he believe that the standardised government regions properly reflect regional identities?
    Mr. David: They do to a large extent, but it is not perfect.
    The White Paper suggests that the issue will be looked at and that there will be consultation. As I understand it, nothing is cast in stone. We need a constructive debate, but at this stage it is important to establish the principle, which is absolutely sound.
    France has traditionally been one of the most centralised countries in Europe, but Prime Minister Raffarin is proposing the devolution of power to the regions. Many parts of the UK draw successfully on European structural funds. The White Paper recognises that there is a need for regional intervention at European level so as to articulate the needs of specific regions. There is also a reference to the single programme document, which is an important strategic document that draws up the plans for the use of the funds in a particular area. I remind hon. Members that, since the last European election, Members of the European Parliament have been elected on a regional basis. We will therefore see greater co-ordination and a partnership between MEPs and regional authorities.

    581
    Some hon. Members may still claim that the assemblies will have few powers. I beg to disagree. My reading of the White Paper is that the new assemblies will have significant strategic powers for sustainable development, planning, transport, housing, culture and, of course and crucially, economic development strategies. The proposed assemblies might even have greater financial powers than the Welsh Assembly. It is suggested in the White Paper that regional assemblies might have the power to borrow to fund capital expenditure and for cash management purposes. The Welsh Assembly does not have those powers, so people should not dismiss the powers that the English regional assemblies may have.
    Regional devolution will provide the opportunity for greater democracy and more dynamic regional economic policies and will reinforce the unity of the United Kingdom while at the same time celebrating its diversity. I hope that the Queen's Speech will receive the full support of the House, especially its proposals for regional government, which should be warmly received.
    8.2 pm
    David Burnside: Two aspects of the Queen's Speech cause me major concern, one of which affects the whole nation and the other Northern Ireland specifically. The most depressed economic sector of our society is the farming community. I am old-fashioned: I call people farmers, not sectors of the rural economy. The farming community is going through a worse crisis, economically and personally, than any other sector of our society.
    Twenty or 30 years before the price support structure of the European Union was put in place, some sectors of farming would always be doing well while others were doing badly: pigs, barley and beef would be good, but dairy would be bad. Under a more fixed farming system, fortunes went up and down. As a Member from Northern Ireland, I support the present price support system because our farming community needs it, but it is not right and it is not working. Unless the Government face up to what appears to be a continuation of the system of production-led price support cobbled together by the French and Germans, we will never have a highly profitable and successful farming industry.
    It is disappointing that the Queen's Speech proposes no help for the farming industry, especially when the Government can find time for a vicious little Bill to repress a minority sporting interest-a countryside pursuit called hunting with dogs. I do not hunt, but I fish and shoot and I understand the strong personal views on hunting with hounds. The House should not consider wasting its time acting as an elected dictatorship to force through legislation to repress a minority interest. The countryside and the farming community have much more pressing needs.
    Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman regard the hunting of badgers as a minority interest? Does he think that that should have been abolished?
    David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows very little about the countryside. I assume that he wishes to protect the foxes, but if the House pushes
    582
    through the Bill on foxhunting, more foxes will be shot, wounded and killed by the farming community, so his objective will not be achieved.
    The second aspect concerns the government of regions. I suppose that Northern Ireland is a region, although we traditionally call ourselves a province. It is disappointing that the Queen's Speech refers to the further implementation of the Belfast agreement. We do not have regional government in Northern Ireland. The powers of the 26 councils are minuscule and we do not have a form of devolution at Stormont for one reason: the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation to expel terrorist-led political parties from the executive government of Northern Ireland. The democrats are being punished. We cannot have devolution because Sinn Fein-IRA is not prepared to give up its two-pronged approach to politics—democracy during the day and terrorism and criminality at night. We all suffer. We do not have accountable local government. I hope that the regions of England will get accountable, strong local government, not some super-tier of regional government that means nothing.
    The Government have, however, found time for legislation on the further reform of policing. We have had reform of policing—we had the Patten report—and sometimes reform is not reform. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, a highly respected, strong police force that dealt with terrorism and crime, was ripped apart, demoralised and reorganised for political reasons, not for sound policing reasons. Crime has increased and the threat of terrorism continues, but the Government promise us more police reform in this Session.
    I hope that the elected dictatorship in this House will realise that the Unionist, law-abiding, pro-democratic parties in Northern Ireland—although we have only a small minority voice here—will not go along with reforms that bring terrorists on to the district police partnerships in the Province. If that is what the Government plan, it will be a rough Session, because the Unionists and the democratic parties in Northern Ireland will not participate in the other institutions of the agreement that still exist. If the Government can find time only for more concessions to republicanism, it says little for their respect for those of us who are trying to be democrats in Northern Ireland and who want widespread cross-community consensus with our Catholic and nationalist neighbours in an institution at Stormont that works. At present, we feel marginalised because the only people who get concessions from the Government are those who use the threat of force.
    I hope that the Government will give some time to the farming community. It is not big in numbers or votes. Perhaps it does not fit in to the focus groups of new Labour, but it is an essential part of our society.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend mentions the farming community, but he will be aware of the serious risk to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland as a result of the severe limitations on cod fishing. Our colleagues in Scotland share our concern. Will he join me in urging the Government properly to protect the interests of the British fishing industry, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
    David Burnside: My hon. Friend is right. The white fish industry in the Irish sea catches cod and similar fish.

    583
    It will be destroyed if the scientific report is implemented, as will the communities of Kilkeel, Portavogie and Ardglass, and the great fishing industry in Scotland. It is time for the Government to stand up for the national interest, as decommissioning can go only so far in our fishing industry. After that, there would be nothing left—no ships, and no people working in the ports. I agree completely with my hon. Friend.
    We want accountable government in Northern Ireland. The Government should give priority to working with the democrats in Northern Ireland to achieve something that is workable and accountable. I hope that the English regions also get accountable and powerful local government, and not some quango super-tier of nothingness.
    8.10 pm
    Mr. Peter Pike: I do not know enough to get involved in an argument about Northern Ireland with the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), but I believe that most people there want a peaceful future. It is the responsibility of the House to support all those who want a peaceful future in Northern Ireland, and all those who want to achieve it through democratic means. I disagree with many of the points that the hon. Member for South Antrim made, although I know that he feels strongly about them. However, I hope that we can achieve peace in the Province—or the region, as the hon. Gentleman called it.
    The hon. Member for South Antrim mentioned the Bill to ban hunting with dogs, about which I strongly disagree with him. The Government should bring forward a simple Bill, as the people of this country believe that it is time to reach a decision. The more quickly we take that decision, the better.
    I support the Government in introducing further controls on fireworks. The season gets longer and longer, and fireworks intended only for display purposes now get into the wrong hands. They are a growing nuisance for many people and animals, and many consider that it could soon be time to allow fireworks to be sold for display purposes only. That might be regrettable in some ways, but we must consider the option carefully if we cannot control or remove the nuisance in any other way.
    Antisocial behaviour is another issue on which I shall support any measures that the Government may introduce. Such behaviour has become a common and growing problem throughout the country, and it is right that we should take steps to ensure that a minority are not allowed to destroy the lives of the majority. Regrettably, that is what is happening at the moment.
    I have long been a supporter of regional government. Introducing it is the right thing to do, and I have seen what the regional development agency in my area has achieved. Just over a year ago we had the bad news about Michelin, but the RDA has acquired the site and taken matters forward. An elected and accountable regional assembly would be able to do even more to deal with issues of strategic importance, such as transport, investment and employment, and I strongly support the proposal.
    584
    I am glad to say that Burnley borough council also strongly supports a regional assembly, and there has been a meeting of all local authority leaders in the area. The leader of the county council and the chief executives of the two unitary authorities attended, and they backed the proposal that Preston should be the main town in the north-west region. 1 advocated that 10 years ago, so I am glad that some people agree that Manchester or Liverpool should not be the automatic options. Putting the assembly in Preston, which has good communications, would prevent us from having to choose between those two big cities.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that we should not isolate local government reform from the question of the regions. I agree; I believe that unitary authorities represent the best way forward. The Conservative Government failed to deal with the local government problem, and the Banham commission and local authorities, too, failed to seize the opportunity to tackle it. It is important that we tackle it now.
    In Lancashire, there are many opinions about how the county council has handled the future of old people's homes. Another difficulty in the area involves secondary high schools. Some parents have set up what they call a do-it-yourself school in Burnley, because they do not consider that the places provided for their children are acceptable. There are no easy solutions to such problems, but a unitary authority would be much closer to the people. That is why I strongly support the proposition.
    Local government finance is another issue that the Government must deal with this year. In a letter to the Burnley Express last week, a constituent called R.M. Carruthers asked why Burnley did not get a fairer grant. The letter recounted how, before the 1997 election, I had spoken about the inequality of the local government grant allocation, and about what a Labour Government would do about it. Mr. Carruthers asked why nothing had been done—but I believe that action on the matter will not be long delayed.
    A recent report from Burnley borough council stated:
    "When the present Government was elected in 1997, it undertook to review the grant distribution system."
    The report then refers to the Green Paper published in 2000, and says that Burnley borough council is getting less in grant, 11 years later, than it was when the present local grant system was first introduced. Taking into account inflation of about 25 per cent., that means that we are considerably worse off now. Changes need to be made, and I hope that a fairer system can be devised. People do not understand how, although a district authority collects the council tax, some 80 per cent. of it goes to the county.
    My final point concerns housing problems in Burnley, about which I receive letters every day. I received two letters today alone, and the first described how the writer lived in fear every day and night that her house was going to be vandalised and set on fire. That is a real problem. There are 4,500 empty houses in the area, more than 10 per cent. of the housing stock. The writer says:
    "Perhaps if you was in my position you could comprehend my dilemma, it dominates my life."
    The writer said that the problem was also affecting the lives of the other people in her family. Another correspondent wrote to tell me that a copy of the

    585
    document "Your Housing Update" had arrived, but that his area was not covered in the next group action scheme. The writer said that he would have to sell his house, at 25 per cent. of its value.
    That is typical of the problems that so many people encounter. There are many empty houses, and many people whose houses have lost their value. I get two or three letters on the subject every day, and people come to my advice surgeries every week with similar stories. People are living in a nightmare of fear because the council is unable to tackle the problem.
    My noble Friend Lord Rooker, the Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who has responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration, wrote to me to say:
    "I visited East Lancashire on 1 October and saw for myself the severe housing problems that you face. I can well appreciate the blight on lives and communities that low demand causes, and the Government is as determined as ever to tackle the problem."
    Burnley is one of the pathfinder project areas for housing renewal. We received £2.66 million, but we need hundreds of millions of pounds—£670 million in east Lancashire—if the problem is to be solved. We need a commitment over 10 years, and I believe that we are getting very near to that. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce good news for Burnley and east Lancashire in January.
    However, because of the time needed for appropriate preparations, the news announced in January will come some months before any programme can be implemented, so I urge the Government to accept that they have a responsibility to the people of Burnley and east Lancashire to do something now, before it is too late. People are desperate, and cannot wait any longer for Government action.
    8.19 pm
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He spoke with great passion about the problem of empty homes in his constituency and housing issues in general. I would not have believed that part of his speech had I not, four or five months ago, walked around Manchester and seen street after street in which two thirds of the homes were boarded up. I come from Devon nice parts, so that was a shock. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great power and passion, and I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are listening.
    Although the hon. Gentleman represents Burnley and I represent Plymouth and part of Devon, we are in the same region: it is a region that I call England. We do not need England to be carved up into artificial regions to help us run our affairs. With the increasing use of technology, it should be easier to run things with the systems available. We should not create artificial divisions.
    I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Queen's Speech. We welcome many of the proposals in the Gracious Speech, especially some of the criminal justice measures. There is no doubt in my mind that tackling crime is one of the most important issues. I also welcomed the Home Secretary's statement today.
    Once upon a time, the Prime Minister talked about the causes of crime. Unless Parliament and the Government start to tackle some of the causes of crime
    586
    and go upstream and intervene at that juncture, no matter how many Bills we pass, how many new gimmicks we introduce and how many more policemen we put on the beat, we will not solve the crime and antisocial behaviour problems facing the nation.
    Two upstream issues are vital. First, it is essential that when heroin addicts or crack cocaine users make the brave decision to kick the habit, they should have immediate access to treatment. Three months later, six months later-or, as in some parts of the country, two years later—is not soon enough. They will change their minds, and continue to fund their habit through crime. They are caught up in their misery, and their families—and all of us—suffer. I was disappointed that there was nothing in the Queen's Speech about access to treatment for drug addicts, and I hope that the Government will take note of my comments.
    Even further upstream is the issue of what goes on in some homes. Over the 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have spoken to many primary school teachers. When four or five-year-olds come into their schools, the teachers know who will fall through the fingers of the system, who is likely to underachieve, who has not received the parenting, love, support, encouragement and discipline that they require, and who is already out of control. We need better systems of early intervention to bring to bear on youngsters at that early, upstream stage if we are to tackle crime further downstream.
    The Government partly created the problem that they now seek to solve by bringing into force referendums for regional government. In creating regional development agencies with no accountability, they introduced this unnecessary problem, which they now propose to tackle with an unwanted solution. It will mean government further away from the people. There is one obstacle to regional government that I cannot get over. If the Government have their way, it is likely that in a few years some parts of the country will have regional government and others will not—and that may be a long-term settlement. Can anyone in the Chamber name any other country in the world with such a dyslexic system of government that there is regional government in some parts of it and not in others? It will become a Trivial Pursuit question in America to name the country that has regional government in some parts and not in others. It will become a question for German students of politics and geography. An exam question for students in the future will be, "Does the United Kingdom have regional government?" and no one will be able to answer it.
    Angus Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is asymmetric devolution in Spain? Some parts of that nation have devolved institutions and other parts do not.
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman gives Spain as an example. Is that the country on which we should model our constitution? Is that what the Government are offering the people of the United Kingdom? I wish they would make that clear in their statements.
    The Queen's Speech was a lost opportunity in relation to housing. I know that the Government's heart is in the right place, and that they care about standards in

    587
    housing and the provision of sufficient affordable housing for those who require it. However, the point that they continue to miss is that the current housing crisis is not just a continuation of the need to provide good quality social housing. A new crisis has broken out in recent years. There is a lack of affordable housing to buy in many areas. People face that problem not only in London and the south-east but in many other parts of the country. It affects key workers, such as nurses, firefighters, local government officers and the police, who do not want to live in rented accommodation all their lives. The Government continually fail to understand that. Key workers want affordable housing to buy, and at the moment they cannot access it. They are part of the 85 per cent. of the population who want to own their own home.
    In rural parts of the country, such as my area, local people living in towns and villages cannot afford to stay, to buy and to live locally, because they have been priced out of the housing market. Some of those villages have existed since the 15th century and are now under threat of falling apart, because the old balance of rich and poor has changed. People from all backgrounds used to live cheek by jowl in the successful model for living called village life. That is under threat because local people cannot afford to buy.
    I had hoped that the Government would try to tackle that problem in the Queen's Speech, but they have not done so.
    Mr. Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the best way to address an increase in demand for housing such as he has described in his constituency is by an increase in the supply? Does he think that Members who say, "Not in my backyard," are creating the problem in his area?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for that intervention. There is an issue of supply, but other factors are at work. In South Hams in my constituency, second homes are a real contributor to the upsurge in house prices. Twelve per cent. of homes in South Hams are second homes. I agree with the provision in the Queen's Speech that the 50 per cent. council tax discount should be removed, and I very much hope and expect that South Hams council will surge to imposing a 100 per cent. council tax on such homes. That will not provide more houses, but I think that it will raise £1 million for the council to spend—on housing need, perhaps.
    More and more people now work in London and live, not in the suburbs or even in the counties immediately around London, but well out in other parts of the country. With their London salaries, they are inflating house prices all over the country.
    I call upon the Government to do three things in the next 12 months and I hope that these measures will be in the local government Bill, when we finally see it. First, they should recognise that the problem of affordable housing to buy is not just a London or a south-east issue; it is an issue in many rural parts of the country, especially the south-west. Challenge funding of £200 million, modest amount though that is, certainly needs to be open to other parts of the country, not just the south-east.
    588
    Secondly, I call upon the Government to undergo a paradigm shift—which is not as painful as it sounds. Whenever anyone raises the subject of affordable housing with this Government, they think of social housing to rent. It should be recognised that the current crisis is in affordable housing to buy. That is the "now" issue. The Government must not fight the last war, and we need new ideas to help us to get to grips with that problem.
    My third point—this is my contribution to the debate—is that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to do some blue-skies thinking to create a new form of legal tenure that will help us to tackle the problem. My suggestion is that we should create a new form, which I would call "localhold", whereby a developer who builds a housing estate in any area with high housing prices and relatively low wages has to ensure that one tenth of the properties are available for local people who have been resident for three years to purchase. Those people would own the house outright, but they would be able to sell only to someone else who has been resident in the district for three years, or to someone who moves from a similar type of property. There should be tax incentives for developers to make such provision, and even more incentives if they provide more than the allotted 10 per cent. The constraint on the ability to purchase a house of that type should ensure that the affordability element is passed on to future purchasers. One problem with all the existing schemes is that the affordability element is not available to purchasers down the line.
    I want the Government to recognise that there is a crisis in affordable housing to buy. They should be engaging in blue-skies thinking and coming up with workable solutions to solve that problem, and I am disappointed that the Queen's Speech remains strangely silent on the issue.
    8.30 pm
    David Taylor: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution on two of the topics scheduled for debate—transport, focusing on aviation, and the environment.
    It is a great disappointment to me, as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that the Gracious Speech made no reference to any Government plans to give greater protection to the hundreds of communities throughout the country whose quality of life is so seriously affected by the impact of nearby airports. That is particularly important to my constituency, as it contains East Midlands airport, which although an economic asset to the region, already causes significant local problems especially because of the scale and nature of its night freight flights. Any major increase in flying activities could produce totally unacceptable consequences for many people who live in the vicinity, which includes tens of thousands of people in the constituencies of North-West Leicestershire, South Derbyshire, Loughborough and Rushcliffe.
    I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Transport in his place. On 23 July 2002, when he made his statement on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom, he said
    "doing nothing is not an option."—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 847.]

    589
    As I said in the House that same day, if he meant that it was not an option to do nothing to give airport communities a decent environmental framework to protect them
    "in particular from the corrosive and damaging effects of night noise"—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 860],
    he was right.
    The national options for airport expansion have been hugely controversial and have been triggered by the enormous growth in air travel in recent decades. In 1970, UK air passengers totalled 32 million. By 1980, that figure had grown to 58 million. By 1990, it was 102 million and by 2000, it was 180 million. Discounting all environmental constraints on growth and extrapolating in a way that would make any half-decent statistician blush, the Government are forecasting passenger numbers soaring through the stratosphere to 275 million by 2010, 400 million by 2020 and more than 500 million by 2030.
    For the aviation industry to urge our nation to predict and provide for growth on that scale is absolutely unsustainable. For the industry to promote it without a proper evaluation of the impact and the alternatives is simply irresponsible. If the Government are to ensure that the future of the aviation industry is to be a sustainable one, some management of demand has to be undertaken.
    Three types of action commend themselves: fiscal measures to end the unfair tax breaks; higher rail investment; and tighter environmental limits. First, the huge anomaly of tax-free aviation fuel must end, although that will require international agreement. In the meantime, the Government can consider a noise or a fuel tax for internal flights, or ending aviation's zero VAT rating status. By 2030, this Al Capone of the travel industry will be avoiding tax to the tune of £30 billion per year.
    A second option is to extend transport choice by greater investment in rail, which would allow a better use of existing airport space for long-haul flights. The report "From Planes to Trains" shows that almost half of all flights in Europe are less than 300 miles and have great potential for transfer to rail.
    Finally, management of demand can be achieved by giving the aviation industry clear operating standards aimed at developing new technology to reduce its impact. Tight national limits need to be spelt out and central control of the London airports, achieved by a designation under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, must be extended to the larger regional airports.
    Doing nothing is not an option, especially for people near regional airports who would pay the real costs of unrestrained growth—the huge tracts of unspoilt countryside bulldozed to make way for concrete and tarmac; the thousands of acres of ugly commercial sprawl; the loss of wildlife habitats; and the massive traffic congestion. Local villages, such as Diseworth in my constituency, would be changed out of recognition, while the ancient and beautiful churches in villages such as Breedon would be at risk because their Saxon builders forgot to ensure that they were nowhere near a flight path.
    590
    Worst of all are the air pollution and intolerable noise and disturbance from night flights. A few days ago, I received the following email:
    "Good morning Mr Taylor,
    Well it's 04.31 on the 15th November and again I have been disturbed by night flights from EMA. Several have powered over the house in Thringstone..and again I can't sleep because just as I doze off another one goes over..as I have a health problem that makes sleep somewhat of a precious commodity..it looks like it might be a case of having to medicate in order to get some at all. A wonderful state of affairs, having to use drugs to be able to sleep because someone is disturbing the Peace, though if I disturbed the slumber of the EMA chairman I'd get arrested."
    Nocturnal noise is a growing problem at British airports. It can affect quality of sleep and thus performance at school and work and, ultimately, it can affect health. The Queen's Speech would have been more welcome if it had taken steps to combat the sources and levels of unnecessary noise in our country. A consistent approach to environmental regulation at all our airports is fundamental. We can achieve that only if the national aviation policy, which will emerge next spring in the Government's aviation White Paper, has a common comprehensive framework for noise control. There must be equity and fairness between individual airports as to the environmental regulation required—a level runway, as it were.
    Airport communities throughout the land are closely following the appeal by the Government against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that Heathrow is violating human rights by depriving people of a night's sleep without sufficient justification. Villages near East Midlands airport certainly hope that the ECHR verdict will be upheld, as that large regional airport is unique in having no limit on night flights.
    Unsurprisingly, there has been a wave of local protest from a wide range of organisations about the Department of Transport's midlands aviation consultation paper. On Saturday, it will culminate in a large peaceful protest against a second runway. I wholly support the action group Wings in its campaign objectives of no new runway, no expansion outside the existing airport boundaries and no further increase in airport capacity without the most stringent environmental constraints.
    I commend and support the work of other local community organisations, such as PAIN—People Against Intrusive Noise—and parish council groups such as AARPC—the Association of Airport-Related Parish Councils—in their fight for a better quality of life for their members in the face of a powerful aviation lobby. Throughout the land, similar groups are engaged in that uneven struggle.
    We must all challenge the flawed basis of the consultation process—the forecasts for air travel and freight flights until 2030 and the questionnaires specially written by highly paid civil servants to set communities from each airport area against one another. We must show that it would be highly irresponsible not to consider demand management; otherwise, irreversible environmental damage will result. The Queen's Speech should have flagged up an intention to act on aviation.
    The growth in aviation is out of control only because it is exempt from many of the controls that have applied to other industries for many years. Why should the polluter not pay? Why should there not be an end to

    591
    public subsidy to aviation? Why should not land use planning law require all proposed airport developments to detail their full environmental impacts?
    Aviation has economic and social benefits, although they are not as substantial as the ubiquitous lobbyists would have us believe. Its down sides, although widely documented, are not fully understood by politicians and decision makers. Is it not time to listen to the airport communities and to hear their counter-arguments to the excessively grandiose self-promotion of the aviation industry?
    Many of the options in the aviation consultation papers are environmentally disastrous and socially unacceptable. The Government really are flying into trouble.
    8.39 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I start by drawing the House's attention to my interests, which are declared in the Register of Members' Interests, and by congratulating the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on the excellence with which they proposed and seconded the Loyal Address. I take some pleasure in mentioning that because it is exactly 10 years since I seconded a Loyal Address, when I was unwise enough to refer to Kenneth, now Lord, Baker as a genial old codger on the way out and myself, somewhat remissly, as an oily young man on the make. So I know just what a terrifying experience it was for the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow.
    I should comfort the hon. Lady by saying that, almost immediately I had had that experience, I was made a Minister, and so excellent was her speech that I very much hope that that will be her fate as well. However, I should also warn her that all five of those who seconded the Loyal Address between 1992 and 1997 lost their seats at the subsequent general election. I do not know quite how high Bethnal Green and Bow is on the list of seats that we Conservatives hope to win, but I am sure that she should beware on that count.
    The Queen's Speech was best summed up in an excellent interview in the Financial Times on Saturday, in which Sir John Mortimer—a long-time Labour supporter—described the Government as follows:
    "I had great hopes of Labour in 1997, but now I think they have gone totally raving mad; totally dotty."
    Hon. Members may think that a reasonable precis of our amendment, but all I can say is that, if luvvies and lawyers are now deserting the Labour party, it cannot be much longer before all the rest do likewise.
    I should like to dodge in and out of the amendment that was so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I start by addressing the Government's failures, to which the amendment draws attention, in so far as they relate to business. I have previously made a point of praising the Chancellor of Exchequer for some of the things that he has done. Indeed, a disgruntled Conservative Whip approached me to point out the place in Hansard where I referred to him as an excellent Chancellor—it is very good to know that other people apart from ourselves
    592
    read our speeches in Hansard—but the truth is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done many very wise things.
    We in this country have had 10 years of unparalleled economic prosperity—five under Labour and five under the Conservatives. It would be good if the Chancellor would pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and Lord Lamont for laying the foundations of that prosperity, but it is clearly true that the Government's chickens are coming home to roost. The effects of tax increases of £47 billion, to which the CBI drew attention last week, and the enormous increase in red tape are now evident in our economy, and I greatly fear what will happen to unemployment levels during the next 18 months.
    All business surveys show that business confidence is in decline. We all warned—it is clearly on the record in Hansard—that the absurdly over-optimistic growth forecasts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer espoused earlier this year would prove to be totally fallacious. As always with Labour Governments, he will end up with fixed spending plans and the necessity to borrow or increase taxation. In the Chancellor's case, as hubris moves to nemesis, he will see what will happen to the economy.
    We in this country have already had a massive tax increase, but where are the improvements in services? The amendment refers to the health service and education, and I want to make a point about both. There has been a limited effect on waiting lists, but the truth is that those waiting lists mask the fact that thousands of families—not a week goes by in Sutton Coldfield when I do not see one of them—are forced to go private. Those families club together to ensure that, say, an elderly relative can receive treatment more quickly than is possible in the health service.
    Targets have been skewed not on clinical need, but on the Government's political needs. The position on health has not improved anything like as radically as we were promised and, into the bargain, I am very concerned about the Government's treatment of Good Hope hospital, which is in my constituency, in the past six months, and I shall return to that point on another occasion.
    The same failure to deliver is true in education. At a speech day that I attended in my constituency last Friday, the excellent headmistress urged me in her speech to tell the Government—I do so with pleasure tonight—that there must be
    "no more change; let us now enhance and improve what we have in place."
    I joined a meeting of secondary heads in my constituency last Friday, and also recently visited St. Joseph's Catholic primary school in Sutton Coldfield. Teachers and heads alike complain of the 79 different funding streams that they are seeking to access, and of the very uncertain ongoing levels of education funding in Sutton Coldfield, which makes planning extremely difficult. They point out that, since the Government came to power, 17 pages of regulations have been issued for every school day. They also point out that one need

    593
    only look at the advertising in newspapers, especially in The Times Higher Education Supplement, to see the grave recruiting difficulties in our schools at this time.
    Mr. Dawson: On the hon. Gentleman's tour of schools in his constituency, did he take any time to quantify the amount of capital investment that had been put into their facilities?
    Mr. Mitchell: Of course. The hon. Gentleman heard me refer to the 79 funding streams, all of which represent extra money available for schools. If he listens carefully to what I am saying, however, he will realise that I am pointing out the difficulties inherent in the way that the Government have looked after education.
    I shall pass over the A-levels fiasco of this summer to mention briefly the issue of top-up fees. I believe that top-up fees are a truly appalling proposition. I went along with the Conservative Government over student loans with a certain heaviness of heart. I can tell my party's Front Bench, however, that there are no circumstances in which people like me will support top-up fees. At the last election, we had an excellent policy of endowment funds, which perhaps will not be possible next time. Another way must be found, however—I look forward to returning to the matter in the future—instead of seeking to charge students top-up fees, which is absolutely outrageous.
    As has been made clear, the public services are central to political debate, but they are the rock on which the Government will founder. The Prime Minister is very fond of saying that he understands the problem and is getting on with the remedy. Nearly six years have passed, however, with precious little effect and precious little reform. The Government are discovering the hard way that top-down reform will simply not work. The truth is that we have had massive tax increases, but we wait in vain for the improvement.
    I should have thought that one of the problems that preoccupies this Government more than most is pensions. In 1997, when the Conservative Government left power, pension provision in this country was the envy of Europe, but as the highly respected Pensions Institute said this week:
    "It is certainly the case that within a few short years what was the envy of Europe, namely a good well funded private pensions system sitting on top of an admittedly poor-in-comparison-with-the-rest-of-Europe basic state pension system appears on the verge of possible disintegration".
    In the face of these difficulties, the Government appear to be caught like a rabbit in headlights.
    David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to the "admittedly poor" state pension system. Can he recall whether the decoupling of the state pension from pay in the economy took place under a Conservative Government? And was it not the Government led by the noble Baroness Thatcher, as she now is?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have already pointed out that in 1997, when the Conservative Government left office, we had a pension system that was the envy of the rest of Europe. It is now deteriorating daily, and all that we are promised is a Green Paper. The Opposition have been trying to contribute on this important subject—we have
    594
    suggested a lifetime savings account—while all the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is summarily dismissed by the Government. Everyone knows that we must save more and that the debate about compulsion verges on the silly—we must have compulsion. All that we get from the Government, though, is the promise of a Green Paper and the implicit threat that they will do something about abolishing tax relief. The Select Committee is doing its bit: we have set in train some work on what should happen to our pensions system. It is now absolutely clear, however, that what we need is action from the Government, with a clear understanding of the role for employers, employees and the state.
    I shall speak briefly on the issue of regional assemblies to which I, and most of my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, are implacably opposed. It is absolutely astonishing that, on top of all the other layers of elected government, we intend to have yet more elected politicians. If the answer to the question is we need to elect more politicians, it must have been a pretty daft question. The Government are a compulsive meddler in our constitution. I accept that it is a minority view, but the unwise reforms to the House of Lords have not been matched with reforms to this place. We all know that there are far too many Members in the House of Commons. We now have more Members than we had when this country governed an empire that stretched around the world. Yet we hear nothing from the Government about the importance of doing something about that.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mitchell: No, because I do not have the time.
    We have a good and respected Prime Minister leading a rotten Government, who are all hype and no delivery. They have produced an inconsequential Queen's Speech that will do little to address the fundamental and far-reaching problems in Britain today. I hope that the House will reject it in the amendment tonight.
    8.51 pm
    Ms Dari Taylor: In welcoming the Queen's Speech, I wish to mention a couple of Bills that I shall support. I shall most definitely support the Bill on hunting with dogs and the Bill that will lead to the creation of regional assemblies. I want a complete ban on hunting and complete regional assemblies.
    I am delighted by the inclusion in the Queen's Speech of the Bill on criminal justice and sentencing reform and, for the first time ever, of a Bill to deal with antisocial behaviour. They both place crime at the centre of the scene, and people in my constituency and nationally want there to be a fight on crime. We are delighted that that is one of the Government's central pledges.
    I have no doubt that the public have, to some extent, lost faith with the criminal justice system. They have seen it weakened over the years by what they perceive to be inadequate sentencing and soft penalties. The plans to combat antisocial behaviour with tougher measures will win widespread support. I am more than pleased to see that in the framework of the Queen's Speech.

    595
    My constituents have already referred to the fact that in his speech on the Loyal Address my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned two forms of antisocial behaviour relating to fireworks and airguns. Such activities are second to none in the subjects that are raised in the letters in my postbag. Firework misuse has provoked people in my constituency to say that they feel as though they are under siege from September to January, and particularly in late October and early November. They want effective action to be taken so that access to such products is seriously restricted.
    Likewise, no one in my constituency would argue against the banning of—or, at least, the imposition of serious restrictions on—the purchase and use of airguns. I shall argue that licensing with a defined purpose of use should shape the legislative framework that controls the sale of airguns. One death has already occurred in my constituency. Children were having fun, but it was not fun when an airgun was fired and killed a 14-year-old. One death is one too many. A review of the lethal potential of these weapons is long overdue.
    My major contribution to this debate on achieving effective laws that will reduce crime and that will revive the spirit of community and social cohesion rests on the belief that the use of illegal hard drugs, particularly heroin, must be controlled. Action must be taken significantly to reduce the number of addicts that live in our communities. I would like to persuade the House that that requires an understanding not just of the numbers of drug-related crimes committed or the numbers of addicts involved. If we are to make an impact, we must understand the root cause of the problem. We need to understand what makes people take drugs in the first place. We know the numbers involved and use them for social policy purposes, but we do not know the people, who are young, vulnerable and poverty stricken. They feel discarded and isolated. It is time that we asked them what is going on in their lives that makes them so controlled by such substances.
    It is not that the numbers are not compelling. There are more than 250,000 addicts, which is probably an underestimate. We know that the illegal drugs market has a value of £4.5 billion in this country alone. The problem causes social and economic havoc in many areas. The police in Cleveland estimate that chaotic and problematic users of heroin are finding upwards of £230 a week to spend on buying that drug. To get that money, they steal between £600 and £700 worth of goods every week. We can all imagine how much havoc they wreak on estates in my constituency, and my constituency is not an exception. If we are serious about a Bill to deal with antisocial behaviour and serious in our intent to reduce crime, we should acknowledge that although in relative terms there are only a small number heroin addicts, they commit the majority of crime. We must understand how they destroy our established communities.
    I do not wish to criticise in any shape or form the existing excellent drug enforcement strategies. The police have excellent intelligence. I received a report from Cleveland police force that says that it is pursuing a dealer-a-day strategy, which to date has led to the sentencing of 151 dealers in 160 community-based operations. The intelligence is available and
    596
    enforcement is working. We have drug education and drug action teams and have increased the number of opportunities for drug treatment, but the facts remain stark. The number of addicts is growing year on year. They are getting younger and crime is increasing exponentially with them.
    The chief constable of Cleveland said that crime has increased in Cleveland by the astounding figure of 11.9 per cent. He stated:
    "this reflects the growth of drug addiction in our community".
    If the Bill means what it says and antisocial behaviour is defined, controlled and reduced, we must take on board why young people are compulsively controlled by illegal substances. I ask myself what we are doing wrong. Hon. Members on both sides of the House find the issue compelling. Are we ignoring the evidence before us? Are we underestimating the reasons why young people take drugs?
    Research makes it clear that people's propensity to use drugs is due to five major causes. One problem is the accessibility and availability of drugs. We have all heard young people say that dealers are everywhere. They are like crows on addicts shoulders. Young people cannot turn around without being offered two for the price of one or drugs at half price. They are even told that they can pay later. Those young people on drugs are alienated. They are outside the good life. They feel a deep sense of loss. They have low self-esteem, no job and, often, no family. They live and sleep under bridges or wherever. There is an absence of alternatives. No one works with them to say that things could be better and different.
    I am passionate about the problem. Those young folks have been excluded somewhere along the line by politicians and social policy, and they think that no one shouts for them. They believe that they have no future and no prospects.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady and I have discussed the problems of hard drugs before in the Chamber. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that we need more facilities for the treatment of hard drug addicts? She has not mentioned that. Does she think that that should be provided by compulsion if people are convicted of hard drug offences?
    Ms Taylor: That was an excellent intervention. I am probably rattling through my speech so quickly that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that the total number of drug treatments has increased since 1997 by more than a third. I would be wary of using compulsion. The police in Lancashire have a programme whereby, with the health authority, they are embracing young drug addicts. They are saying to them, "You come in and receive treatment and we will do all we can to keep you off drugs. We are not interested in sentencing or compulsion. We know that you have to want to come off the drug." I am told that, to date, of the 36 youngsters given that opportunity, 35 are proving that they can stay off heroin. That is an important statement. I would love to introduce compulsion, but I think that we realise that we can want all we like; the youngsters have to want to come off drugs. I am therefore not convinced on the compulsion argument.

    597
    I am convinced of other arguments. We must have a flexible system of support. There is no one size fits all solution. There are individual needs and we must approach the problem by recognising that. Universal acceptance that the state should provide prescriptions of heroin—obviously to a minority group, with great care and to achieve one thing: to cut out the dealers and get young people into a support service—is long overdue.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Robert Syms: Like many of my colleagues, I intend to dwell a little on regional government. In common with many MPs, nobody from my constituency has written to me to say that they want a regional tier of government. The Government are making a great mistake by pursuing the policy. People have to feel a loyalty towards an area. They feel a loyalty to their town, village or county—or indeed to being British or being English. If we have to have an unnecessary tier of government, I might be able to persuade my constituents of the benefits of an English Parliament—
    Angus Robertson: English MPs have got one already.
    Mr. Syms: That is one argument.
    People regard being English as very important but they feel no loyalty to the south-west, which is an artificial region that has no separate identity. The Cornish have very different problems from those of us in Dorset. Many of my constituents commute to Southampton, Winchester, Basingstoke and London, and tend to look eastwards rather than westwards, mainly because the road system is so awful that nobody in their right mind would go west of Bournemouth or Poole. The investment has not been made in the south-west.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the case for regional devolution is a case for economic equity together with democratic accountability on the part of the existing unelected regional tier of government?
    Mr. Syms: I do not accept that. The Government have been silent on how they would reallocate resources. The issue of Scottish funding and the aspirations of the north of England came up earlier. If the Government are honest, they will publish a paper on inequalities between areas of the UK. When people set out on the journey of regional government, it is perfectly reasonable that they know what financial settlement they would get.
    My basic fear is that we will end up with unwanted regional government: a tier of politicians drawing salaries and building new offices. Most of my constituents would rather that that money be spent on social services, education, roads and other important things in their locality. I believe that there is no great appetite for regional government.
    The issue of regional boundaries has been raised in the debate. There might be more logic to boundaries in the north of England, but there is certainly not in the
    598
    south-east, the east or the south-west. The Conservative Government devolved the regional offices to places such as Bristol in order to create jobs there. It was never intended that the offices be a political unit, and I do not believe that they will ever be.
    As a schoolboy, I grew up in Bristol. The then Conservative Government created Avon county council, cutting bits off Somerset and Gloucester and changing the status of the city and county of Bristol. There may have been a logic to that—indeed, there may be a logic to the creation of Humberside and other areas—but there was no emotional attachment. Campaigns began immediately, but after 20 or 30 years, the situation has changed. If one does not take into account local ties and concerns, one is storing up difficulties for the future.
    I shall focus a little bit on Poole borough council, but before doing so, I should like to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about the problems of flood defence and the various tiers of government that interfere with a solution. An opportunity has been missed in the Queen's Speech to deal with that.
    Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from UK media coverage that my constituency was hit over the weekend by devastating floods. Does he agree that the Government have missed an opportunity as they are not seeking to co-ordinate social security offices, the Inland Revenue and the financial services industry to deal swiftly and effectively with the many hundreds of people in my constituency who are now homeless and the many businesses set to go out of business in the near future?
    Mr. Syms: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point extremely eloquently. The problem will become much bigger. We will have many more floods in future and it would be better to have a clearer, more comprehensive way of dealing with them.
    As for the Government's planned local government legislation, we have heard their buzz phrases about freedom and so on, but I am suspicious of their reaction to local government, especially their proposed reform of the grant system. For many years, many of my colleagues and I have campaigned for a fairer grant system for Dorset, which has suffered as a result of the area cost adjustment. It is a great concern that schools in Poole, Bournemouth and out in sticks in Dorset have received £200 less per head than schools up the road in Hampshire and Ringwood. I am disappointed that the Government's reform proposals will make the situation worse. They are taking money from poorly funded authorities to give to better funded authorities, many of which have a political loyalty different from ours in the south of England, which is a pity.
    Looking at the various options, it is highly likely that Poole will lose money. It is not an extravagant authority, and may need to impose a heavy council tax rise just to stand still. Changing the grant formula has a great impact not only on local government but on the police. Dorset police authority estimates that it could lose £1.4 million to £4.8 million—a substantial part of an £89 million budget—which could mean the loss of 300 police officers. There is therefore genuine concern about the changes, which could have a great impact.

    599
    I welcome the opportunity for local authorities to get rid of the 25 per cent. council tax discount on second homes if they wish. My main concern is what happens to the money once that decision is made. The Deputy Prime Minister said that most of that money would stay with local authorities—the figure of £65 million was mentioned. However, many empty homes are eligible for a discount, and the £160 million that could be garnered from them may well be recycled back to the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that taxation will not be increased and recycled back to the Government, rather than to people at the sharp end.
    Dorset has a serious problem with funding. Social services are under great strain, and the south and south-west have problems providing children's social services, which means that the provision of services for the elderly and the disabled are not what they should be. The proposal in the Queen's Speech to fine social services for bed blocking is not wise as those services are short of money. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, the fault may not be with social services-it may well be with the NHS itself. I hope that the Government will consider that proposal carefully.
    My main concerns are the impact on my constituency of changes to local government and to the local planning system. By and large, our planning system has worked well at district council and county council level. I have concerns, however, about major infrastructure projects—it cannot be wise to spend £80 million on the terminal 5 inquiry at Heathrow when our competitors at Schipol and Charles de Gaulle airport can add two runways and compete with us. Faster progress needs to be made on major projects.
    The balance that we strike, with local people being able to have their say through their local authorities, works pretty well. To move towards a regional agenda for our planning, with more decisions perhaps being devolved to planning officers, would be counterproductive. That is a cause of great concern among my constituents. We have a system in Poole whereby, if a matter has to go before a planning committee, it is green-carded. It happens a lot, because people want to see matters debated and dealt with on the floor of their local authority. If we move away from that, we will rue the day.
    Earlier, the Government were patting themselves on the back for their achievements in respect of density and brown field sites, but in Poole that means that many 1930s properties which have rather large gardens are being put under pressure to be pulled down and replaced with multiple housing. That is changing the character of many of our areas, which is a great pity. I would prefer much more power over planning decisions to remain with local people, so that they retain ownership of it. If the Government change the planning laws and get it wrong, they will rue the day.
    I have concerns about regional government, the funding changes that the Government are proposing for Poole, and the planning system, which the Government must be very careful about changing.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: This has been an important Queen's Speech, heralding some tremendous reforms and a huge amount of work over the next parliamentary year. I shall concentrate on an element of housing—park homes—and regional government, which are of great significance to the people of Lancaster and Wyre.
    Park homes are often described as caravans, and the legislation covering them consists of various Caravan Acts and the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Unfortunately, that Act is full of holes and leaves people—often elderly people—living in rural areas extremely vulnerable to the attentions of rogue landlords. The draft housing Bill provides an opportunity to introduce a new chapter on park homes, which comes about because, over the past four years, the Government have wisely engaged in a complex review process, in partnership with the responsible elements of what should be an excellent industry and representatives of the three national park homes organisations.
    I do not have time to deal with all the difficulties posed by park homes, but if we use the opportunities that the draft housing Bill gives us and the knowledge gained from that complex and subtle review process over the past few years, we have a tremendous chance to reform the law and to introduce fit-person criteria for the people who own and run residential parks.
    We have the opportunity to introduce sellers packs into transactions that often do not even involve solicitors. We have the opportunity for local authorities to enforce the improvement of standards, better registration and inspection, to ensure that residents are protected and empowered. The important element of affordable housing which is adaptable, light and modern can grow further and become a more important part of housing provision, particularly in rural areas. Residents on parks will be protected and responsible park owners as part of a responsible industry will be allowed to flourish. We are talking about people who, if they are not already seriously depressed by criminal and rogue elements in the park homes industry, now live in fear of some rogue's taking over the running of their park, and of losing any right that they have to live in peace and comfort—often in the last home that they intend to inhabit. Dealing with the problem should be a priority for a Government who I believe are committed to traditional values in a modern setting.
    I want to talk about regional assemblies and, in particular, about the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. I have been amazed at some of the rhetoric I have heard this evening. My constituency has benefited enormously from the influence of the North West development agency. It contains Lancaster university, a world-class university and a centre for high-tech research, management skills and applied sciences. Thanks to investment from the Government, from Europe but also from the development agency, over the next 20 months or so the city will have an opportunity to build a world-class business centre based on high-tech research and the skills provided by the university.
    The constituency also contains a large rural area, and the development agency is making huge efforts to help rural regeneration. We are seeing the development of a

    601
    "Made in Lancashire" label. We are seeing proposals for investment in and redevelopment of market towns. We are seeing a whole agenda relating to Don Curry's report and his commission on food and farming, the Government's investment in farming, diversification, rural areas, and opportunities for parish councils to develop transport programmes and engage in major planning—huge opportunities, indeed, for rural areas, through education, diversification and co-operation, to reconstruct their economies. It is essential for local people to have a democratic say in the way things operate at regional level.
    We need a certain sort of regional government. Various spectres have been unleashed on us tonight, but what we need is regional government that is lean and fit and uses all modern means of communication. We need regional government that is rooted in the history of the areas that it governs. Members have referred to county councils that have existed in the same form since 1974. The historic city of Lancaster, the ancient county town of the old county of Lancashire which stretched from Barrow to Manchester and from Manchester to Liverpool, has real historic resonance. We need a regional assembly that will engage with major stakeholders, and will identify—and enable people to identify—with the whole region. We need regional government that relates to rural areas, urban areas and the vast range of people who live in the north-west. Above all, we need regional government because we need democratic control of the enormous powers that now exist at regional level. Anyone who denies that has given up.
    Such a measure will give us the opportunity to reform local government. I do not want the reform to extend just to unitary authorities, although I want to see an end to county councils, which have served their purpose. I want the flexibilities that this Government have introduced through health, social care and education legislation to work to the benefit of people. I want the development of trusts and I want local government to be at the heart of effective partnerships to improve the lives of people in the Lancaster and Wyre constituency.
    9.20 pm
    Norman Lamb: In the year and a half or so since I came to this place, the issue of housing has probably made up the biggest part of my postbag. There is a particular problem with second homes in North Norfolk. Some 10 per cent. of housing stock there is second homes. That has a considerable effect, particularly on some of the coastal communities. About 50 per cent. of the core of some villages is made up of second homes. Elsewhere, they make up less of the village, but the impact that they have on the viability of schools, on local transport, on shops and on post offices is considerable.
    The 50 per cent. discount on council tax for second homes should never have been part of the council tax regime. The fact that it has remained for so long is a scandal. Since the council tax was introduced, about £10 million to £15 million has been lost to North Norfolk as a result of that discount. A regressive tax that is regarded by many people as unfair seems even worse when they look at what they are getting for their services and see people who predominantly have higher incomes paying only 50 per cent. of the rate because they own a second home. There is massive resentment there.
    602
    I welcome the Government's announcement that councils will be able to charge a lower discount on the council tax, but I strongly take the view that it should have been abolished in its entirety, or at least that councils should have had the ability to charge the full council tax. The notes to editors on the Deputy Prime Minister's press release say:
    "The Government has decided that a minimum 10 per cent discount is necessary so that second home owners will have an incentive to tell their local authority that this is a second home."
    The rest of us do not get an incentive to comply with our legal liabilities in terms of council tax or any other tax that we have to pay, so why is it that second home owners need that incentive to comply with the law? The Government should have abolished the discount in its entirety, so that more money could be raised for affordable housing and other local services. If it were abolished completely, North Norfolk would get an extra £1.5 million. We will lose £300,000 of that extra sum because of the 10 per cent. minimum discount. That seems a great wasted opportunity.
    I welcome the fact that the Government have made it clear that the money will be available locally for local councils to spend as they see fit. That is good news, but my concern is that it comes at the same time as the Government are reviewing the way in which they allocate central Government money to local authorities. The great fear is that local authorities will gain the extra money from the reduced discount in second homes, but then lose out on a reallocation of resources away from rural areas to cities. So we have to watch carefully that that is real extra money. It is desperately needed, particularly for the provision of more affordable homes in North Norfolk.
    I add one point on a planning issue. There is a case for at least considering requiring people in these hot spots, in the villages where about 50 per cent. of the houses are second homes, to apply for planning permission to change the use of a property from a permanent home to a second home. Providing some local democratic control over what happens to those villages should at least be considered.
    I support the right to buy, which has done considerable good in terms of creating mixed-tenure communities and avoiding the development of ghettoes of entirely owner-occupied, or entirely council-owned, properties. I have a personal concern about the size of the discount, particularly in high-value areas, where individuals can gain an absolute bonanza through, in effect, the transfer to them of public money.
    The biggest concern of all relates to the failure over many years to replace lost stock. The Conservative proposal to extend the right to buy to housing associations will simply exacerbate the problem. The Thatcher Government did not countenance it, yet now the Conservatives are proposing it. There are Conservatives up and down the land involved in housing policy who realise the stupidity of this plan, and its likely effect on an already developing crisis, but what have the Government done about the right to buy?
    In September, the Deputy Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference that the Government will act. He recognised that, in some areas, the right to buy is denuding local stock, and that there simply are not enough homes for local people. However,

    603
    his statement—it has yet to be backed up by action—resulted in people across the country getting in their applications, so that they can buy their property before it is too late. In other words, it has actually exacerbated the problem. I have checked the situation in Norfolk. In one district, there have been more applications in the seven months of this financial year than in the whole of last year. In another, there were 158 applications last year, but 226 this year. That is fine—
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Wonderful.
    Norman Lamb: The Conservative spokesman says "wonderful", but the effect is that an ever-decreasing number of houses are available to rent for people who desperately need them.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Conservative right-to-buy policy. He is doubtless aware that all the proceeds from houses purchased from housing associations will be reapplied to build more houses, thus providing more stock for people who want to enter the affordable housing sector. What is important is not the number of houses, but their availability. It is those extra houses that will be afforded as a result of proceeds from the right to buy.
    Norman Lamb: That sounds all well and good, but it simply will not be possible to deliver on that. To start with, where will the money come from? It will not be possible to get one for one, quite apart from the impact on the finances of housing associations, which are having to borrow on the money market on the assumption that they will keep those properties for rent.
    At the same time as we are losing housing stock to the right to buy, waiting list applications continue to grow. Between 1998 and 2002, the numbers in North Norfolk have more than doubled, and homeless applications are up by nearly 50 per cent. in two years. Overall, there are fewer homes, more people needing homes, and a lower turnover of homes, so the situation continues to get worse.
    The planning system is failing to provide sufficient new affordable homes. North Norfolk has a local plan. Only for developments of more than 25 properties is a developer required to provide a mix of affordable homes. That quota was introduced by the inspector, following a public inquiry; the local authority wanted to establish a figure of 12 properties in respect of such developments. We are stuck with that quota because it takes so long to review the local plan. On top of that, developers manipulate the system to delay the building of affordable homes for as long as possible. The planning system must be capable of responding more quickly to changing circumstances. It takes years to review the local plan. We are stuck with a system in a rural area where there are very few developments of 25 properties or more, so very few affordable homes are being built.
    The exceptions policy was designed to allow affordable homes to be built outside the normal development envelope of a village. In all the years it has been available in north Norfolk, it has been used only
    604
    twice. About 15 properties have been built as a result of that policy. It is a bureaucratic system that does not work.
    On housing, there has been a real sense of inertia from the Government. So far, they have been unwilling and unable to meet the scale of the crisis that is developing in many communities across the country.
    9.31 pm
    Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) for her sensitive speech about the drug problem in her constituency. Such problems are echoed in many other constituencies.
    The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) mentioned flood management, which is a problem in my constituency. There is a need for a new strategy and perhaps legislation to deal with the alleviation of flood risk. We need more investment and a change in the priorities and the powers given to the Environment Agency rather than leaving local authorities to deal with flood alleviation.
    I am pleased that the issue of hunting with dogs is to be resolved. Monmouthshire has a longstanding tradition of hunting, and I am conscious that there is support for hunting within the farming community. Essentially, that support is for the role that hunting plays in helping to control foxes, which are a threat to livestock, and the role of the hunt in removing fallen stock. That support is based on the principle of utility, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has introduced into the debate. The representations that I have received from constituents in urban and rural areas have overwhelmingly supported the view that the hunting of foxes and other mammals with dogs for the purpose of sport is morally wrong. I have voted in accordance with that view and
    will do so again when the new measure is debated.
    I acknowledge the need to control foxes, which are a threat to livestock. We also need to provide an alternative method of disposing of fallen stock when hunting has been abolished. I have supported amendments in previous legislation that will call for state support for a livestock disposal service. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that when drawing up the forthcoming legislation.
    I welcome the proposals to reform the court system. I recently visited Gwent court service in Cwmbran to hear of the proposals to rationalise the court structure. Although that will involve the closure of certain existing courts, a major new court facility in Abergavenny will be developed, combining the civil courts and the magistrates courts. It will be well equipped with new technology and the use of television evidence will be possible.
    I welcome the proposed draft housing Bill to improve the process of buying and selling properties. The buying and selling of a home is one of the most stressful events undertaken by most people. Proposals that require the provision of seller's packs should ease the pressure. Other housing measures include the proposal to improve the housing environment in low-demand areas. The licensing of houses in multiple occupation is especially welcome because it aims to improve standards

    605
    for people in some of the worst housing conditions. It will require the local authorities and fire services to visit properties to check on their condition. It follows the provisions in the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), which had to be withdrawn at the end of the previous Session. I hope that the Government will consider the home energy provisions that were in that Bill and include them in the new legislation.
    I welcome the announcement on antisocial behaviour orders, which will now be available to housing associations. In my constituency I have dealt with a number of cases of antisocial behaviour on housing association estates. I have noticed the frustration of the police and the housing associations at the fact that only the local authority can instigate such orders. It is a welcome announcement that should increase the number of antisocial behaviour orders and address one of the most distressing and unpleasant aspects of life on certain estates.
    I welcome the opportunity for people to vote in referendums on regional assemblies in England. Wales and Scotland have shown that there are advantages to democratic devolutions. In Wales, we have seen a renewed confidence about our nation, with better representation for the more deprived areas, as a result of the introduction of the National Assembly for Wales. We have also had a fairer voting system through the additional member system in the Welsh Assembly. We have had better representation of women and the appointment of a Cabinet that has more women than men. What other Parliament or Assembly in a democratic country has that?
    Devolution in Wales has also meant Welsh solutions for Welsh problems. We have had a distinct approach—in education more than in other policy areas—with the reintroduction of student maintenance grants for higher education—a measure that I sincerely hope will be followed in England. We have also seen the abolition of SATs in primary schools and the emphasis on true comprehensive schools rather than specialist schools. The Queen's Speech also included the National Health Service (Wales) Bill, which will retain the community health councils that will be replaced in England.
    We also have planning policies that will retain the structure—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just arrived in the Chair and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not reading a speech into the record. This is a debating Chamber and it is not for the hon. Gentleman to read a speech.
    Mr. Edwards: I accept the point that you make, Mr. Speaker. I was conscious that it was difficult to concentrate, given the amount of noise in the Chamber this evening.
    I hope that one important measure will be introduced, as part of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, to reduce overcrowding on buses. That will also require amendments to the Education Act 1944, which allows the three-for-two rule that contributes to considerable overcrowding on buses taking pupils to school. That is an especial problem in my constituency. Many hon. Members would be disturbed to realise that a 48-seater bus can take an additional 24 passengers sitting as well as another 20 passengers standing, which leads to considerable overcrowding.
    606
    We have had an interesting Queen's Speech debate and I am pleased to have contributed to it. I hope that the Government are able to proceed with their policies for improving public services and to continue to improve their economic and social policies as a result.
    9.37 pm
    Mr. Tim Collins: There are a couple of measures in the Queen's Speech that we can welcome. We obviously welcome the legislation to set up a rail accident investigatory branch. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that we welcome that legislation, because as long ago as 1999 my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), as shadow transport Minister, called for precisely that measure. While we will study the detail of the Bill, I assure the Secretary of State that the official Opposition will not seek to cause him needless difficulty on it.
    My constituency, in common with those of hon. Members on both sides of the House, will undoubtedly benefit from the Government's decision—in response to cross-party lobbying from several hon. Members—to allow local authorities in England to have the same discretion that local authorities in Wales already enjoy to decide for themselves whether to retain the 50 per cent. discount on council tax. However, I would press the Secretary of State to reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about whether the Government will guarantee not to reduce the grant provided to local authorities availing themselves of that new right, so that they end up better off. He also asked whether the Government's undertaking to allow local authorities to spend the full receipts received from imposing the 50 per cent. or higher rate on second homes also applies to any revenue coming in from the application of that tax to empty homes. If the Secretary of State is not able to respond to those points—even though they were originally made some hours ago by my hon. Friend—I hope that he will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to write to my hon. Friend and me, and other interested Members, on that point.
    The Deputy Prime Minister was unable to respond to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about whether the Government were as concerned as they should be about the lack of social housing. He said that the reduction in the amount of new social housing built since the Government took office in 1997 has meant that there are 35,000 fewer social houses than there would have been had they maintained the status quo that they inherited. The Deputy Prime Minister could say only that that was a very good point. However, he had no answer, and he did not say what he would do to resolve the problem.
    In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that regional government would end up being what shire county residents have always feared, and that voters in cities would have the right to override the wishes of voters in shire counties. The Government have the nerve to call that a democratic exercise.

    607
    The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, made it clear that his party wants more regional government. He said that Liberal Democrats for many years had been strong advocates of regional government.
    Mr. Don Foster: Quite right.
    Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says that that is right, but only some Liberal Democrats are in favour of regional government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my constituency, the Liberal Democrats are vociferous opponents of regional government. I do not want to impede the general love-in between the Government and Liberal Democrat Members, but the Conservative-Liberal coalition in Cumbria, which expelled a Labour council, has made it clear that it opposes regional government.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Collins: Certainly, as the hon. Gentleman may also have views about the Conservative-Liberal coalition in Cumbria.
    Mr. Martlew: I made the point that the Liberal Democrats opposed to regional government in Cumbria are the same ones who are in cahoots with the Tories to introduce care charges for elderly people in my constituency. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
    Mr. Collins: I am very happy to comment on the fact that the incoming administration, which decided with Liberal Democrat support to expel the Labour party, inherited a massive black hole of £3 million in Cumbria county council's accounts. That problem was made worse by DEFRA's failure to pay up on all the bills incurred during the foot and mouth outbreak.
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked a very important question, to which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to respond. She asked for clarification of the concordat between DEFRA, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Transport. She wanted to know what it was, what it covered and what it related to. I think that that is a very important matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond.
    In a characteristically powerful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out that regional government would shut out the interests of rural areas. He also made it clear that there is strong unhappiness in rural areas about the Government's 20-day livestock restriction rule. Many Conservative Members share that sentiment, and we hope that the Government will reconsider the matter urgently.
    I pay genuine tribute to the courage of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who was a Minister with the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in very difficult times during the foot and mouth crisis. She came to the county of Cumbria before any other MAFF
    608
    Minister, and answered a number of questions that were put to her. She had a difficult case to make at that time, and she did so with courage. She was equally courageous today, and I may even alarm you, Mr. Speaker, when I note that she said that she thought that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. Not many Scottish Members of Parliament were present, but her remark is worth putting on record.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) was right to address the central issue of the democratic deficit that the Government propose. I hope that I can put the problem in very clear terms. Scotland is a nation and has a Parliament. Wales is a nation and has an Assembly. England is more than a collection of 10 artificial Euro regions. England is a nation too, and has a right to have its voice represented properly.
    Mr. Salmond: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. Scotland is a nation and has a Parliament; Wales is a nation and has an Assembly; and England is a great nation so it should have its own Parliament. Is that not the logic?
    Mr. Collins: The logic is that we should have the excellent policy that my party has proposed of English votes on English laws in this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was vociferous in his condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for daring to criticise the activities of the Scottish Parliament. We would perhaps take the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the Scottish Parliament a little more seriously if, when it came to choosing between there and here, he had not chosen here rather than there.
    The hon. Member for Carlisle rightly paid tribute to the value of Border Television, and I join him in that. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a serious allegation, to which I hope the Secretary of State will respond. My hon. Friend alleged that his constituents have been told that they will lose Government cash or new transport projects unless they publicly support the Government's actions. I hope that the Secretary of State will investigate that serious allegation, and have done with it if necessary.
    We have heard excellent speeches about bureaucracy from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One of the big differences between Labour and Conservative Members is that, like the majority of people in this country, we do not believe that the answer to the problem of bureaucracy is to have more bureaucrats, more politicians, more assemblies, more headquarters buildings and all the rest of it. We think that this country is already over-governed, not under-governed.
    Time and again the Government have made promises on these issues but have not been so good at keeping them. The Deputy Prime Minister said that after five years he would have cut road traffic: promise made, promise broken. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that our air is not for sale: promise made, promise broken. In 1999, MAFF set a target and said that it would avoid any major livestock disease outbreak: promise made, promise broken. The Prime Minister said that the Government had no plans to

    609
    increase tax: promise made, promise broken. Labour told people in regional and rural communities up and down the land that things could only get better: promise made, promise broken. The Government have failed, failed and failed again. That is why the House should vote with enthusiasm for the Opposition amendment.
    9.47 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The debate covered a wide range of subjects, but it is incredible that the shadow spokesman on transport made a speech but said barely a word about that subject. This is a man who, when he spoke to his party conference, said that he would shortly make proposals on transport—yet he said not a word about them. That sounds to me like a promise made and a promise broken. He has failed to deliver.
    Inevitably, many Members spoke about matters covered by the Deputy Prime Minister and by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I shall say one or two words about that as a matter of courtesy to those hon. Members. Clearly, there is a lot of feeling about regional and local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), for Wigan (Mr. Turner), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred to that subject. I have been in the House for 15 years, and it is surprising to hear Conservative Members' new-found devotion to local government. I spent the first 10 years of my time here listening to them attacking local government time after time, and talking about the abolition of councils, and the people's views did not seem to matter then.
    A number of Members spoke about housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has often raised in the House, and with Ministers, the problems that his constituents face. Today, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions made a written statement on second homes. The answers to many of the questions raised by Opposition Members and others are in that statement; on those that are not, hon. Members will have the opportunity to put their points in the House in the usual way.
    The rural economy was another subject that was raised, although strangely not in the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). It was raised by the former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—clearly a man who is enjoying having shaken off the responsibility of being Leader of the Opposition. He made an extremely witty speech. If I too had shaken off my responsibilities, I might agree with one or two things that he said.
    As for the rural economy and agriculture—that subject was raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), but he is not in his place now—this is not just a question of legislation. The Government are doing many things to help people who live in rural areas, and to try to help farmers to deal with very difficult circumstances—not only the aftermath of foot and mouth, but the long-term structural changes in agriculture.
    610
    Other matters, too, were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned the Communications Bill, and I am sure that there will be many occasions when the House can return to that subject and debate it.
    As we approach the first of two Divisions on this Queen's Speech, it is strange that no Conservative Member has mentioned the economy today. Without a strong economy, there is no money to fund the public services—[HON. MEMBERS: "That was on Monday."] The economy is just on Monday, is it? It is on every day of the week, every week of the year. Only an Opposition who lost power because they had lost control of the economy could honestly believe that we only discuss the economy on Mondays.
    What is also astonishing is that although in every debate on the Queen's Speech that I have heard for the past 15 years the Opposition have always divided the House on the economy, this year we have had no such Division. Do they agree with us? Have they no difficulties with the economy? Do they agree with our approach to it? It is astonishing that that should be the approach of the Conservative party.
    The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who speaks for the Opposition on transport—at least, some of the time—said at the Conservative party conference:
    "politics should be about passion, excitement…and above all about optimism."
    He also said:
    "It's time for Conservatives to put some fire in our bellies, to get up off our knees",
    but not on the economy—except on Mondays. He continued:
    "This country needs, deserves and is crying out for"—
    wait for it—
    "a strong opposition".
    What a limit to the man's ambition. The Conservatives no longer aspire to be the party of government; they aspire to be the party of opposition. Perhaps that is why they discuss the economy only on Mondays and not on any other day of the week.
    Without a strong economy, without the money necessary to finance our public services, we will not have the strong public services that most people want. The reason why we can invest in our public services is that we have a strong economy—the lowest inflation and the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years and the lowest unemployment for 25 years, which shows that it is possible to have low inflation and high employment. We have rising levels of public investment year on year. That is why we have been able to recruit more police, more nurses, more teachers and more school support staff, and to put more money into transport. Those are all possible because of the deliberate decisions that we have taken both in relation to the economy and to invest in public services. And, as the Queen's Speech makes clear, that is all accompanied by measures to modernise and reform our public services—both are absolutely essential.
    We have a clear purpose—a clear sense of direction. When we consider the Opposition amendment, on which we shall shortly vote, it is as well to remind ourselves of what was happening 10 years ago

    611
    this year—15 per cent. interest rates, high unemployment, increasing poverty, increasing inequality, lack of opportunity, and a failing economy. Furthermore, 10 years ago this very year, the Tories were setting out on a monumentally expensive and botched rail privatisation. Unlike today, when the shadow Transport Secretary had precious little to say about transport, a few weeks ago he had something to say about Railtrack. He said at the Conservative party conference
    "But nor can we pretend that every aspect of rail privatisation was a success, that Railtrack worked remotely as we had hoped, or that … our 1990s changes have won popular support."
    I suppose that is the nearest we shall get to an apology from the hon. Gentleman: the transformation from the nasty party to the nice party. Then he promised that he would come up with new policies before the year was out. Well, the year has only six or seven weeks to go, and we cannot wait to hear the Conservative policy.
    Critical to the continued success of our economy is the need to continue to improve our transport system. More people are in work. We are one of the largest economies in the world. People need and want to travel more and they can afford to do so. That means that we need to put more investment into our public transport, in rail and road, and we also need to ensure that we have an air transport system fit for the future. In the past, the promises of successive Governments were undermined when they either could not or would not find the money. That is why, for example, the west coast main line has not been upgraded since the 1960s or early 1970s. That is why there are problems right across the piece, in the railways and on the roads.
    We now have a long-term investment plan over the next 10 years. We are getting to grips with the work that needs to be done. It will take a long time but improvements are beginning to come through.
    Mr. Collins: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Darling: By all means, if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about transport.
    Mr. Collins: As the Secretary of State is saying that the answer to the nation's transport problems is public investment, and as he has just referred to the 10-year transport plan, will he explain to the House why at the end of that 10-year plan—15 years into a Labour Government—[Interruption.]—he will be spending substantially less as a proportion of GDP on rail transport—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
    Mr. Darling: Now I see why the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to be a strong Opposition—apparently, there are 10 more years of it to come.
    As far as I could hear the hon. Gentleman, I think that he was asking whether investment was the only thing. No, it is not. It is necessary to make changes, as we have done: the SRA is providing strategic direction and we are ensuring that Network Rail takes over from the mess left by Railtrack. It is also important to reform the franchising system. All those things are being done.
    612
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about what Richard Bowker said. I think that he would be the first to agree that he was not saying that the Government had renationalised the railways. Patently, we have not. Richard Bowker's view was that the railway system needed strategic direction—something that it never had under the botched privatisation that the Tories left us. Performance is improving, although there is a long way to go. Much improvement still needs to be made in the railway industry and elsewhere.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale welcomed the railway and transport safety Bill, which the House will have more time to debate in the future. It will make a big difference, and I hope that it will shorten the time that it takes to ascertain what has happened when anything occurs on the railways. The system has worked well for air and marine accidents, and it is the right way to ensure that we deal satisfactorily with rail safety.
    Astonishingly, the hon. Gentleman did not mention roads. However, my point is the same. We need more investment and we need to ensure that we bear down on the problems of congestion. We need to improve road safety and make access easier for people and for goods. The Government are determined to do that, and we shall make further announcements in the not too distant future.
    This year the Queen's Speech concentrates on two principal issues—crime and criminal justice, which will be debated tomorrow—but in the five years that the Govt have been in power, we have put in place the basics. We have built a strong economy. We have got more people back into work. We have driven up standards in education. We have devolved power to the regions and nations of this country. We have reformed welfare and health. We are improving the criminal justice. We are tackling the health and social care problems that we were left, and we are reforming public services. From the Opposition tonight, we had no vision, no sense of direction, just an ambition to try to be an Opposition, but the Government are showing a clear lead, and I commend the Queen's Speech to the House.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 330.

    Division No.1]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Burnside, David

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Cameron, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Bacon, Richard

    Cash, William

    Baldry, Tony

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Chope, Christopher

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clappison, James

    Bercow, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Boswell, Tim

    Collins, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Conway, Derek

    Brady, Graham

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Burns, Simon

    613

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Moss, Malcolm

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Paice, James

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Pickles, Eric

    Randall, John

    Flight, Howard

    Redwood, rh John

    Flook, Adrian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Forth, rh Eric

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Francois, Mark

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Garnier, hon. Edward

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Ruffley, David

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Grayling, Chris

    Selous, Andrew

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Greenway, John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Grieve, Dominic

    Simmonds, Mark

    Gummer, rh John

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Hague, rh William

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hammond, Philip

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hancock, Mike

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Spring, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Hendry, Charles

    Steen, Anthony

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Streeter, Gary

    Howard, rh Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Syms, Robert

    Jack, rh Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Trend, Michael

    Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Walter, Robert

    Lansley, Andrew

    Waterson, Nigel

    Leigh, Edward

    Watkinson, Angela

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Whittingdale, John

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Lidington, David

    Wiggin, Bill

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Wilshire, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Maclean, rh David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maude, rh Francis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Mr. Mark Hoban

    NOES

    Abbott Ms Diane

    Bayley, Hugh

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Beard, Nigel

    Ainger, Nick

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Bell, Stuart

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Benn, Hilary

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bennett, Andrew

    Austin, John

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Berry, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Best, Harold

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Betts, Clive

    Battle, John

    Blackman, Liz

    614

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Brennan, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Gardiner, Barry

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bryant, Chris

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gilroy, Linda

    Burden, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Burgon, Colin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Burnham, Andy

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cairns, David

    Grogan, John

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Caton, Martin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hanson, David

    Challen, Colin

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Chaytor, David

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Healey, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Heyes, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Corston, Jean

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Crausby, David

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Cummings, John

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Hutton, rh John

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    David, Wayne

    Illsley, Eric

    Davidson, Ian

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jamieson, David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jenkins, Brian

    Denham, rh John

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Flint Caroline

    Lammy, David

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Follett, Barbara

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    615

    Leslie, Christopher

    Purchase, Ken

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Rammell, Bill

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    McCafferty, Chris

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonnell, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    MacDougall, John

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McFall, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    McKechin, Ann

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Salmond, Alex

    McNulty, Tony

    Salter, Martin

    MacShane, Denis

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McWalter, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    McWilliam, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Short, rh Clare

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Soley, Clive

    Merron, Gillian

    Southworth, Helen

    Michael, rh Alun

    Spellar, rh John

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Miller, Andrew

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stevenson, George

    Mole, Chris

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Moran, Margaret

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morgan, Julie

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Timms, Stephen

    Owen, Albert

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Perham, Linda

    Trickett, Jon

    Picking, Anne

    Truswell, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pollard, Kerry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Pound, Stephen

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Prescott, rh John

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Watts, David

    616

    Weir, Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    White, Brian

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Winnick, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wishart, Pete

    Mr. Phil Woolas and

    Woodward, Shaun

    Dan Norris

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question again proposed.
    It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Ordered,
  That Ms Meg Munn be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr Tony McWalter be added.—[Mr. Ainger]

PETITIONS

  Natural Health Products
  10.15 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I present part of a large petition, signed by more than 1 million people, that expresses concerns about the potential effects of two recent European directives on the health foods industry. Tonight, I present more than 350,000 signatures. Many celebrities have signed the petition. More then 20 other Members of the House have presented, or shortly will present, other parts of the petition on behalf of their constituents.
  The petition is addressed to the House of Commons on behalf of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters. It declares:
  That consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Dog and Cat Fur Products
  10.17 pm,
  Mr. Alex Salmond: It is my pleasure to present the petition from my constituent Sandra Edwards of Ardglassie Farmhouse, Rathen, near Fraserburgh, who has helped to collect 2,500 names in an online internet petition for the group Voice 4 Dogs. It covers the same subject as an early-day motion signed by 229 Members, including myself. You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the issue

  617
  featured in the Sunday Post in October this year. I know that you take a substantial and keen interest in that paper.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of Sandra Edwards and supporters of Voice 4 Dogs,
  Declares that the import in dog and cat fur products for sale in Britain is unacceptable;
  That these sales cause extreme unbearable pain and suffering to animals;
  That this trade serves no need in the United Kingdom;
  That a voluntary labelling scheme would be ineffective because items can be mislabelled;
  That cat and dog furs are bleached and dyed to resemble more expensive furs; that over two million companion animals are killed in a cruel and inhumane way, which involves prolonged suffering, in China each year; that prior to their death, these animals are kept in appalling conditions; that 2,500 people have signed an on-line petition deprecating this trade and that the trade should be banned across Europe.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to ban the import and export of products made from dog and cat fur as soon as possible and to encourage other EU Member States to do the same.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Free Bus Travel
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will take my two petitions separately.
  618
  It is probably well known, certainly in the House, that the Coventry British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association has campaigned for a number of years for the restoration of the pensions link and the extension of free bus travel.
  To the House of Commons,
  The petition of the British Pensioners' and Trade Unions Action Association, Coventry Branch
  Declares that pensioners benefit from free bus and travel in Kingdom of Eire, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; that there should be parity for pensioners in England.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons in this Parliament enacts legislation to introduce a free national travel pass scheme for pensioners in England.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cunningham: This petition is from the Coventry branch of the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association. It states:
  That the Government has expressed a wish that pensioners should share in the rising national prosperity; that this should involve the linkage of pensions to earnings; that additional pensions should not be in the hands of private insurance companies; that the state should guarantee the security of future pensioners.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons enacts legislation to introduce a minimum state retirement pension of one third of average earnings for a single pensioner, and two thirds for a couple, and to restore the link between pension upratings and average earnings.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Immigration Control
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
  10.21 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a case that concerns a young constituent of mine, Madeline Effala. It is very much a tale of two cities—of London and Paris—so I suppose that I should be grateful that at least it involves no guillotine. It is certainly an unfortunate case of somebody being caught between two countries, of responsibility being passed to and fro between those countries, and of my constituent finding herself at the moment with no settled status.
  In that context, I ask the Minister—I understand why she is replying to the debate; after all, I chose to call the debate "Immigration Control"—to ensure that her colleagues in the Foreign Office are fully apprised of the contents of this Adjournment debate. I ask her to ask them to consider in turn ensuring that the French Government are aware of the problem. I shall make it clear later why I say that. I tried to make an approach via our embassy in Paris—but of that more later.
  Madeline Effala was born in Cameroon on 24 August 1975. When she was 11 years old, her mother went to France to work in the Cameroon embassy. Madeline remained in France, where she was lawfully resident as the child of a diplomat, throughout the rest of her childhood. When she was 22 years old, she came to the United Kingdom—again, perfectly lawfully; her passport was stamped with leave to remain for one year—on a work placement. That was where her problems started.
  Madeline's mother and siblings applied for French citizenship and were granted it on the basis of the length of time that they had been in France and of the fact that they were at that moment resident in France. There is no doubt—nobody so far throughout the case has disputed this—that had Madeline been with her mother and siblings and made her own application at that time, she too would now be a French citizen. However, as it happened, she was not in France and could not do so. She was in the UK.
  Madeline's visa enabling her to live in France was due to expire in 1997, so she went to the French embassy in London in order to renew it and to ensure that at the end of her work placement in Britain she would be allowed to return to France. The French embassy in London told her that to renew the visa she had to go to France, so she went to France. When she applied in France, she was told that she had to apply in London, so she came back to London. Once Madeline had returned to London, the French embassy refused to accept the form.
  By that time, Madeline's right to remain in this country had expired and she was told that she had no right to return to France. She was told that she could not stay here, and that she could not go back to France. Despite the fact that she had resided there for many years perfectly lawfully and that those who had resided with her had been granted French citizenship, and despite the fact that the authorities here knew that she was trying to return to France, she was told that she had no right to remain. After negotiation, it was agreed that
  620
  she should have a six-month extension to her visa to remain in the United Kingdom, but she was still refused permission in that period to go to France. The authorities refused to accept her form and would not allow her to go to France, and her stay in this country, while lawful, was only temporary. In the end, her visa expired, and although she is known to the authorities and has various outstanding applications, she has had no settled basis for living in this country since 1998, despite the fact that she is working legally and paying national insurance and tax.
  In 1999, Miss Effala's solicitors advised her to apply for a two-year permit to remain in this country, but the Home Office turned it down in December 2000. At that point, I became involved and endeavoured to intervene first with the French consulate, arguing that it was unreasonable, given the background to the case, that Miss Effala could not at least enter France and make her application. I also wanted to go out to talk to our embassy in Paris, but it advised me that there was no point, as Miss Effala was not a British citizen, so it could not make representations on her behalf. Once again, Madeline Effala is being passed between two countries, neither of which wants to take any responsibility or is prepared even to entertain making representations. I therefore hope that my comments will be drawn to the attention of the French embassy.
  The only course open to Miss Effala is to go back to Cameroon. She has no contacts whatever there since she grew up in France, where her family live. She has a job and is using the money she earns to assist her family. She has been in a relationship for four years with a British citizen. It would be very easy for her to solve the problem by getting married—it is much to her credit that she does not want to do that, but wants to resolve the problem in its own right and settle lawfully either in France or Britain. Bearing in mind the fact that marriage is often abused to overcome immigration problems, that is much to her credit. As a result of my intervention, the Home Office asked for another raft of material, which was provided on 11 October, but no further contact has been made with Miss Effala or, at this stage, with me.
  This is a sad and sorry situation. Doubtless both countries can defend their decisions technically, but they defy common sense, humanity and reason. I should have thought that sensible people could find a way through, accepting that but for Miss Effala's bad luck in being this country when the rest of her family got French citizenship and but for her perfectly lawful work placement, she would not be in her present difficulties. Indeed, she might not have got into that problem had she not been advised in 1997 that she had to go to France, then been told by France that she had to come back to London, then been told when she came back to London that the French would not take the form. Where does that leave her?
  I appeal to the Minister to speak to her counterparts in the Foreign Office, to look at whether her own officials could apply reason rather than technicalities to this case, and to see whether something can be achieved. The French have now offered, very much at the last minute, to allow Ms Effala to return to France on a tourist visa. If she returns to France on a tourist visa and her application is turned down, she will have no right at all to return to this country and no right to stay in

  621
  France. She feels that the tourist visa would put her in an extremely vulnerable position, but at least it would get her back into France.
  If proper representations could be made, the case would be cleared up very quickly. It is nonsense. It has taken four years to persuade the French to issue a temporary visa, and my constituent naturally feels extremely vulnerable as a result of all that has gone before. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's comments and observations.
  10.31 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. I understand the reasons why she has done so, because we have had correspondence about the case. Notwithstanding the fact that she has set out some of the background, I think it would be helpful if I could add to that essential background before making some concluding remarks.
  As the right hon. Lady said, Ms Effala entered the United Kingdom on 27 May 1997 and at that point was given leave to enter not for a year, but until 27 November that year under the training and work experience scheme. She was then granted further leave to continue her training with Dual Control International Theatre until March 1998. Her employers were advised at that time, however, that the extension under the training and work experience scheme had been granted exceptionally and that no further extension would be approved.
  As the right hon. Lady said, before travelling to the UK, Ms Effala had been residing in France with her mother and her siblings. She held a French student visa on arrival in the UK, but that expired in October 1997. Following completion of her work experience, Ms Effala applied to the French embassy for a visa to return to France to attend the college in Aix-en-Provence. Unfortunately, I agree, it seems that once the French authorities realised that she had entered France with a diplomatic passport, she encountered difficulties in obtaining a visa to return there to continue her studies.
  Ms Effala was then granted exceptional leave to remain for six months as a visitor, specifically to try and sort out her visa problems with the French embassy. She was unable to resolve her difficulties with the French authorities and applied once again for leave to remain in the United Kingdom while she pursued her application for a French visa. I must say to the right hon. Lady that although I was not Minister at the time, looking back at the case—I have looked at it in some detail—I think that Ms Effala's plight was considered very sympathetically, and again she was granted exceptionally six months further leave to remain, outside the immigration rules, precisely because of the predicament that she was in with the French authorities.
  In August 1999 Ms Effala's solicitors applied on her behalf for leave to remain as a working holidaymaker, with a request that the entry clearance requirement exceptionally be waived. Although the Home Office was sympathetic to her plight, 17 months had by then passed since Ms Effala had first approached the Department about her difficulties with the French authorities.
  The crucial point is—and while I agree with every other aspect of the right hon. Lady's account, this element was missing from it—that there was no evidence
  622
  to suggest that Ms Effala had made any progress in resolving her difficulties, or indeed had devoted much effort to doing so. She did not qualify for leave to remain as a working holidaymaker, and she seemed unable to establish clearly how she should return to France, where, as has been said, she has strong family and cultural ties. In view of that, her application to remain as a working holidaymaker was refused on 10 December 1999.
  Ms Effala's solicitors and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) submitted further representations on her behalf. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), wrote on 1 June 2000 that she would be prepared to review the case if Ms Effala submitted evidence from the French authorities explaining the reasons for their reluctance to grant her a visa to return to France, together with an estimate of when they expected to reach a decision. What was required was just some evidence of Ms Effala's efforts to get the French authorities to take the matter seriously. I am afraid that no evidence was received, and in December 2000 Ms Effala's solicitors were advised that in the absence of the evidence requested, there were no grounds for reversing the refusal decision. They were also advised that Ms Effala had no basis for remaining in the United Kingdom, and that she should arrange to leave immediately.
  I understand exactly what the right hon. Lady is saying. It seems, on the face of it, that two countries were passing the buck. But when it comes to Ms Effala's right to remain in the UK—while I am sympathetic in regard to her problem with the French authorities—I hope the right hon. Lady agrees that giving her leeway to try and sort out the issues with the French authorities, which is where the problems lie, should not have meant riding roughshod over immigration rules that apply to others and simply saying "All right, you can stay in the UK". Ms Effala's case has been treated sympathetically in the past, and I do not think it unreasonable for her to have been asked to provide a letter from the French authorities giving the reasons why they were not prepared—or have not been up to now—to issue a visa enabling her to join her family.
  Incidentally, I am rather perplexed about the role of Ms Effala's family, all of whom are French citizens. I do not see why they cannot do more to help her secure some recognition and response from the French authorities.
  Miss Widdecombe: To be able to get into France at all, and certainly to be able to obtain French citizenship, Ms Effala must have an application accepted. Never mind whether the application is successful; the physical process of getting an application accepted must be carried out by Ms Effala. Members of her family cannot make an application on her behalf.
  I have already explained the problem. Ms Effala was tossed about between various countries. She was told "You do it in this country", then "You do it in that country", and then "No, actually, you do in that country"—and then "We will not accept the form". I do not accept that she has not made efforts. Much of the information that has been sought was, in fact, sent to the Home Office in the letter to which I referred. We have not yet received a response. I am not saying that there is anything unusual about that—the matter has been

  623
  outstanding since 11 October, not for months on end-but the information has been sent. My constituent told me that she had not understood the extent of the information required.
  When two countries are involved, can the embassies not talk to each other? Cannot someone talk to someone else?
  Beverley Hughes: I will come to that. I understand that Ms Effala must make an application herself, but if the right hon. Lady examines the very thick case file she will see that there were long periods during which information was requested from Ms Effala and she did not contact Home Office officials.
  That is one issue. The other issue is that the difficulties have been with the French authorities. Short of the final point that the right hon. Lady made about whether embassies can speak to one another, what has been done by the Home Office is all that could have been done.
  I understand that Ms Effala wrote a letter on 11 October in reply to a request for information. She enclosed copies of her family's French naturalisation certificates. She did not provide any documentation at all concerning her own French visa application, which is what she was specifically asked to provide: evidence that she had made attempts in contacting the French authorities to seek permission to enter the country by visa. That did not arrive in the letter of 11 October, which contained simply photocopies of her family's naturalisation status, which as I say is not of itself evidence of her efforts with regard to the French authorities.
  I wrote to the right hon. Lady in August setting out how matters could be taken forward. As I say, Ms Effala has now provided confirmation that her family has French citizenship but she has not provided evidence from the French authorities setting out the reasons why they are not prepared to issue her with a visa to join her family. It has been over four and a half years since she first notified the Home Office of her difficulties in returning to France. During that time the only documentation that she has provided regarding evidence of any visa application is the original application form dated 19 January 1998. She has provided no further documentation to demonstrate that she is pursuing with the French authorities the application, despite repeated requests to do so. I do not say that to heap blame on that young woman but there is another perspective. Information about her efforts has been sought over a long period and has not been forthcoming.
  624
  I appreciate that Ms Effala has found herself in a difficult position that is not originally of her making and that by coming to the UK to take up work experience she may have missed an opportunity to gain French citizenship. I am not passing the buck but I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that in terms of where Ms Effala's future lies, clearly, her difficulties are with the French authorities. That is the key to a resolution of this matter.
  Ms Effala says that she accompanied her mother to France in 1986. As has been said, she stayed there for 11 years before she came here. It is to the French authorities that she needs to put the case for compassionate treatment in the light of her strong cultural and family ties.
  I accept the point that the right hon. Lady is concerned about: I would not want to contemplate the option of a return to Cameroon, although, theoretically, that is an option. The compassionate aspects have been made clear during the debate. I appreciate that Ms Effala would find it difficult to assimilate the different culture of the Cameroon.
  Miss Widdecombe: The reason why I charge in at this point is that I sense that the Minister is beginning to perorate and coming to the end of her speech. The assurance that I have been asking for throughout is this: can someone from the British Government please draw this matter to the attention of the French Government? Even if we cannot make formal representations because Ms Effala is not a British citizen, can we just talk to them?
  Beverley Hughes: I was not trying to duck—
  Mr. John Bercow: To perorate.
  Beverley Hughes: I was not perorating at all. Nor was I trying to avoid the specific question that the right hon. Lady asked. As she will accept—she has already said that the application has come from Ms Effala—the onus has to be on the particular applicant, but I am willing to try to explore the extent to which the offices of if not my Department, then the Foreign Office, can be brought to bear to try to get the French authorities to respond. While Ms Effala herself, and specifically her representatives, could perhaps have been rather more persistent, I accept that there has been a problem in getting a response from the French authorities. I cannot give any guarantees, but I am certainly willing to explore that possibility with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we will see where that gets us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

DEFENCE

  Arctic Convoys (Medals)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has refused to allow veterans of World War II Arctic convoys to receive the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region medal; and if he will reconsider the decision. [80897]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence has not refused veterans of the Second World War who participated in the convoys to Russia permission to wear the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region medal. Any official approach from a foreign Government requesting permission to distribute foreign medals to British citizens would be the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In this case I am advised that the Russians have made no such request. However, if the Russian authorities ask for their Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region Medal to be officially recognised, the matter will be carefully deliberated, as are all similar requests from foreign governments.

  D-day
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has made to mark the 60th anniversary of D-day. [80896]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 31 October 2002,Official Report, column 881W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Information Display System (Royal Navy)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been experienced with the Royal Navy's Joint Tactical Information Display System. [80822]

  Dr. Moonie
  Difficulties experienced on the Royal Navy's Joint Tactical Information Distribution System have concerned the complex integration activity inherent in such a programme. The programme is now proceeding satisfactorily on the basis of incremental capability delivery.

  Military Personnel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past year disciplinary action has been taken against military personnel accused of giving false evidence in criminal proceedings; what action was taken in each case. [80617]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two Service personnel have had action taken against them in the last year for perverting the course of public justice and received sentences of military detention.
  36W

  National Service Veterans
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to award medals to national service veterans; and if he will make a statement. [80411]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. It has never been the Government's policy to consider service in the armed forces as the sole justification for the institution of a medal.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to erect a national monument to conscripted National Servicemen; and if he will make a statement. [80412]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. In accordance with the long established policy of successive Governments, the cost of erecting war memorials or their subsequent maintenance is not met from public funds but from private donations or public subscription. National Servicemen will be included in the eligibility criteria for the Armed Forces Memorial which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 313W and 21 March 2002, Official Report, column 449W.

  I understand that a plot of land at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire has been allocated for a private initiative to erect a memorial specifically for National Servicemen.

  New Zealand Test Veterans
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations Her Majesty's Government has made concerning the financial support provided by the New Zealand government to New Zealand test veterans to support research into the health impact on them of British nuclear tests. [81947]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has made no representations concerning financial support provided by the New Zealand Government to New Zealand nuclear test veterans to support research into the health impact on them of British nuclear tests.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his Department has had with organisations concerning nuclear test veterans. [80123]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive of the Veterans Agency met with representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association on 19 December 2001.

  Private Alison Croft
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result has been of the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Private Alison Croft at Dalton Barracks in Abingdon, Oxfordshire on 2 October; at what time police were called; what steps were taken to secure evidence at the scene of the death;
  37W
  what the conclusions were of their inquiry; what was the nature of the post mortem examination, by whom it was carried out; and what were the findings; at what time were relatives of the deceased notified; and what arrangements he has made for (a) an inquest and (b) a board of inquiry. [80649]

  Dr. Moonie
  Private Alison Croft died at Dalton Barracks, Abingdon, on 28 September 2002. The associated civilian police investigation is still ongoing. In light of this, it would be inappropriate to comment on the circumstances of the investigation at this time.

  Her Majesty's Coroner is the appropriate authority to determine the arrangements for an inquest, not the Ministry of Defence, although the Department will aim to provide assistance where required. A determination has yet to be made as to whether a Board of Inquiry will be held.

  Reservists
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for regular reservists to receive the Golden Jubilee Medal. [80696]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to amend the qualifying criteria for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to include those who had left the armed forces before 6 February 2002, regardless of whether they had a reserve liability or not.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the total combined strength of the Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment had been for(a) part-time and (b) full-time soldiers in each year since its formation; [80661]

  (2) how many (a) part-time and (b) full-time soldiers are enlisted with each of the Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. [80660]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Irish Regiment was formed from the amalgamation of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment on 1 July 1992. The combined strength of the Home Service Battalions as at that date for each year since its formation is included in the table:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1992

  2,854

  2,640

  1993

  2,831

  2,611

  1994

  2,842

  2,385

  1995

  2,876

  2,197

  1996

  2,775

  2,023

  1997

  2,614

  1,974

  1998

  2,576

  1,961

  1999

  2,257

  1,866

  2000

  2,163

  1,713

  2001

  2,019

  1,603

  2002

  1,846

  1,458

  There are currently three Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland. As at 1 October 2002, the number of part-time and full-time personnel, in each Home Service Battalion is set out in the table.
  38W

  Full-time

  Part-time

  2 R Irish

  558

  385

  3 R Irish

  697

  573

  4 R Irish

  606

  478

  All figures do not include those R Irish employed at Headquarters and Depot R Irish.

  Royal Naval Reserve (Chaplains)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Chaplain's Branch of the Royal Naval Reserve. [81508]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is currently no Chaplains' Branch in the Royal Naval Reserve, it having been disestablished in the early nineties. However, a Chaplains' Branch is scheduled to be re-established as a Royal Naval Reserve branch and this will take effect from 1 January 2003. The Branch will have 18 members, who will be part of a Naval Home Command headquarters unit, trained and administered by the Director General Naval Chaplaincy Service. They will be appointed to Naval Bases and Shore Establishments, where they will be liable for duty should it be necessary for regular Naval Service Chaplains to be deployed operationally.

  Service Applicants
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people applied to join the(a) Army and (b) Naval Service and (c) Royal Air Force in each of the past five years; and how many of those were accepted. [80976]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of people who applied for and joined the armed forces since 1 April 1998 are as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Naval Service

  Applications

  14,858

  14,805

  14,694

  13,975

  7,097

  Intake

  4,770

  4,950

  4,620

  5,013

  2,470

  Army

  Applications

  41,389

  42,498

  33,332

  38,929

  20,655

  Intake

  16,267

  16,480

  14,410

  14,782

  8,670

  RAF

  Applications

  22,393

  21,572

  20,689

  19,453

  9,126

  Intake

  4,250

  4,100

  3,630

  3,783

  2,060

  1 Figures for 2002–03 show the position as at 30 September 2002.

  TA Bounty
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rationale is behind the target of 60 per cent. for members of the TA to achieve their bounty each year; and what the target was in each year since 1997. [81108]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Territorial Army does not set any targets for members to achieve bounty, and has never done so. The criteria for awarding a bounty are: completion of a 15-day period of continuous training; or, if authorised, a reduced camp of eight days. In addition, Independent TA personnel must undertake out camp training for 12 days (this is reduced to four days for Specialists) and achieve three passes in
  39W
  individual Training Directives 1–5 (this is reduced to two passes for Specialists). Finally, all personnel must be awarded the COs Certificate of Efficiency in order to qualify for a bounty.

  There is currently a Fit For Role target of 60 per cent. of the TA's strength. The rationale behind this target is based on the fact that the TA is at least 5 per cent undermanned; on average 25 per cent. of all TA are under recruit or Class 3 training at any one time; and up to 10 per cent. of members are unable to meet the training commitments for personal or business reasons. Between training years 1996–97 and 2001–02 the TA employed a Fit For Role target of 55 per cent. of strength. We expect that the TA will meet the target of 60 per cent. of this financial year.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to empower local authorities to provide mandatory air quality monitoring. [80501]

  Alun Michael
  Local authorities have a duty under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess the air quality in their areas and to declare air quality management areas, where it appears that any air quality objective is unlikely to be met on time. This usually involves some monitoring of key pollutants, but the amount of monitoring varies from one authority to another depending upon the scale of any local air pollution problems.

  There are no plans to make air quality monitoring mandatory for all local authorities. This would be disproportionately expensive. Authorities may instead make use of air quality monitoring data from the national automatic monitoring network run by my Department. Where my Department feels that an authority, which has no monitoring of its own, should undertake some air quality monitoring in its area, we may issue directions to that local authority indicating that it must do so.

  We introduced the Air Quality Supplementary Credit Approval Programme to support authorities capital costs. Since 1997, the Government have awarded over £20 million to assist authorities with expenditure on air quality monitoring equipment, dispersion modelling and emissions inventories.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strategies her Department intends to implement to meet the targets under the draft EU regulation on animal by products. [80509]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no targets under the EU animal by-products regulation, but we intend to introduce a statutory instrument to give effect to the requirements of the regulation following consultation with industry and interested parties.
  40W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to revise the Animal By-products Order to include the composting or biogas digestion of kitchen and catering wastes containing meat. [80510]

  Mr. Morley
  We will shortly be consulting on an amendment to the Animal By-products Order, which will permit the treatment in approved composting or biogas plants of catering waste which contains meat or which comes from premises on which meat is handled. Approved premises would need to comply with treatment standards and hygiene requirements in line with recommendations made by an independent risk assessment commissioned by DEFRA.

  Animal Diseases (EU Finance)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on applying to the European Commission for a share of the financial package to fight BSE and other animal diseases in the EU in 2003; and if she will make a statement. [81715]

  Mr. Morley
  For 2003, the UK intended to apply to the European Commission with claims for funding for TB and Brucella for Northern Ireland and for TSE surveillance. These claims were not received by the Commission until after the 1 June 2002 deadline, and were judged to be ineligible.

  Animal Movements
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government will take against those who disregard 20-day restrictions on animal movements from 1 January 2003 by refusing to complete standard movement documents. [80549]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for enforcement of the animal movements legislation falls to Local Authorities. It is for each such authority to determine the appropriate action to take in the event of a breach of the legislation. It is in the interests of the farming industry as a whole, and of the wider rural economy, that farmers should complete these movement documents correctly and observe the animal movement controls in force, so as to help prevent any repeat of last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and (b) visitors to her Department within the proposed central London road user charging zone. [81855]

  Alun Michael
  Within the proposed central London charging zone there are 16 car parking spaces available to employees of the Department, and nine car parking spaces available to visitors to the Department.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81835]
  41W
  Alun Michael
  All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own every day home to office travel costs. The introduction of a central London road user scheme will not affect this basic condition of service. We are currently considering our policy in relation to staff on official business who are required to drive their own or hire vehicles within the charging zone.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost is to her Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81874]

  Alun Michael
  Any additional costs which might accrue to the Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme would be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Correspondence
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she will reply to the letter of Mr. Williams of Cockermouth, a constituent, of 2 December 2001. [80879]

  Alun Michael
  Information on letters sent direct to the Department from members of the public is not collated centrally. Such letters are referred to the relevant Division within the Department on receipt for answer.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the next five years funding for the Countryside Agency. [80743]

  Alun Michael
  I shall make a final decision on the Agency's resource allocation for 2003–04 shortly. I expect the allocation to be very near to £100 million, a considerable increase on this year's allocation of £92 million.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the different financial models she is considering for the future of the Countryside Agency. [80744]

  Alun Michael
  As I announced on 8 November a review of rural policy delivery arrangements will commence shortly, led by Lord Haskins. Its remit will encompass all aspects of the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery arrangements, including those which are currently the responsibility of the Countryside Agency

  Emissions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what emissions of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) hydrocarbons, (c) oxides of nitrogen and (d) particulates are generated by the average UK oil central heating domestic boiler. [81012]

  Alun Michael
  We estimate that in 2000 there were approximately 760,000 households using oil for central heating in the UK, burning a total of 2.25 million tonnes of oil annually. Emissions from individual boilers vary 42W
  depending on the amount of use, and their efficiency and maintenance. However, we estimate that average annual emissions per boiler in 2000 were as follows:

  Pollutant

  Average annual emissions per boiler

  Carbon Monoxide

  0.49kg

  Hydrocarbons1

  1.3kg

  Oxides of Nitrogen

  6.5kg

  Particles (PM 10)

  0.09kg

  1Hydrocarbons includes volatile organic compounds and methane

  Horticultural Research Institute
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to transfer scientists from Wellesbourne back to HRI Efford; and if she will make a statement; [80826]

  (2) if she will make a statement about the conclusions of the 2002 Quinquennial Review of the Horticultural Research Institute in so far as it affects the future of Efford. [80883]

  Mr. Morley
  The Quinquennial Review report on Horticulture Research International was published on 23 September for public consultation. This consultation period closed on 18 November, and we hope to be able to make a statement on the way forward shortly.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80769]

  Alun Michael
  IT security in the Department is kept under continuous review.

  The number of cases of digital attacks detected was (a) 34 in October and (b) 564 in 2002. These attacks were all stopped by our existing security measures.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people employed in her Department are aged over 50. [81690]

  Alun Michael
  There are 1,570 people aged over 50 employed by the core Department.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to review the(a) policy and (b) delivery of the Rural White Paper; [80745]

  (2) when the review of the Rural White Paper will be published. [80746]

  Alun Michael
  On 8 November, I announced that there would be a review of the Rural White Paper, to ensure that delivery is on track and to identify ways of accelerating delivery of the Rural White Paper's vision. The review will be completed by summer 2003 and the results will inform our decisions on future delivery of rural policy.
  43W
  This work will be undertaken in parallel with the review of rural delivery mechanisms, led by Lord Haskins, and reporting to Ministers by summer 2003.

CABINET OFFICE

  Better Regulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many business leaders he has met in the last six months to discuss the Government's better regulation agenda. [81363]

  Mr. Alexander
  In the normal course of my duties I attend many functions and events at which I meet many business people and we speak on a wide range of topics including the Government's better regulation agenda.

  Information Systems
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how often he meets the Government's e-Envoy to review the progress towards compatibility of information systems across Government. [81364]

  Mr. Alexander
  I meet regularly with the e-Envoy to discuss and review all aspects of delivering the e-Government strategy, including the compatibility and interoperability of the various information systems across Government.

  Public Services
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what actions he is taking to improve the delivery of public services. [81365]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Delivery Unit continues to work in partnership with Departments and offers support in meeting key objectives. Its role is to ensure that the Government achieve their delivery priorities across the key areas of public service.

  Working closely with the Treasury, it will ensure that the Departments have in place effective delivery plans for their PSAs.

  Sensitive Documents
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance he has given to Government departments to safeguard sensitive documents in their offices. [81366]

  Mr. Alexander
  Policy guidance on safeguarding sensitive documents is contained in the manual of protective security. The manual is produced by the Cabinet Office and distributed to all Government departments.

  This guidance covers all aspects pf protective security, including physical, document, information security and personnel security.

  Public Appointments (Women)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what progress has been made by his Department in encouraging the number of women seeking public appointments. [81367]
  44W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Public Appointments Unit, in my Department, seeks to raise awareness of public appointments and actively encourages women to seek such appointments. It has participated in a national outreach campaign of regional seminars led by the Ministers for Women and organised by the Women and Equality Unit, to encourage more women to apply for national public appointments. These seminars have reached over 2,000 women from diverse backgrounds across the country.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list for each Government Bill to be introduced this session the form of pre-legislative scrutiny to which it will be subject. [80640]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Queen's Speech indicated the Government's intention to submit a number of Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny this session. No decisions have been made as to the form of scrutiny to which they will be subjected.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial visits have been made to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime. [80894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the collapse of the Taliban, the following Ministers from Her Majesty's Government have visited Afghanistan (making a total of eight ministerial visits):Prime Minister, the right hon. Tony Blair, 7 January 2002,
  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Jack Straw, 14–15 February 2002,
  Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Geoffrey Hoon during a visit to the region from 4–7 February 2002 and from 1–4 July 2002,
  Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Adam Ingram, 3 April 2002, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence, Dr. Lewis Moonie, 20 June 2002,
  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mike O'Brien, 12–15 October 2002, Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Clare Short, 28–30 October 2002.

  Avient Air
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the past two years between British Government officials in(a) Zimbabwe, (b) other African countries and (c) the UK and (i) Mr Andrew Smith and (ii) other representatives of Avient Air with regard to (A) sales of military equipment and (B) other matters. [81764]

  Mr. Rammell
  There has been no contact in the past two years, in either the UK or Zimbabwe, between Foreign Office officials and Andrew Smith or representatives of Avient Air regarding the sales of
  45W
  military equipment. To identify contacts in other African countries on other matters could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed central London road user charging zone. [81853]

  Mr. Rammell
  75 car parking spaces are available to FCO staff. A further eight spaces are available for visitors.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated cost is to his Department of the central London road user charging scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81872]

  Mr. Rammell
  Any additional costs to this Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81893]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is general departmental travel planning policy that staff should not use cars to commute to and from work. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities of Andrew Smith and Avient Air as referred to in paragraph 55 of the UN Experts Panel report on the DRC. [81765]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have asked the UN for information regarding allegations made against British companies or UK nationals. We have yet to receive a response.

  Departmental Staff (Over-50s)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people employed in his Department are aged over 50. [81691]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are 1,233 (21 per cent.) people over 50 employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  General Ratko Mladic
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken with other Governments to bring to justice General Ratko Mladic at the International Court at The Hague. [81058]
  46W
  Mr. Rammell
  We are very concerned about the lack of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by the Yugoslav Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this with President Kostunica during his visit to Belgrade on 6 November. We will continue to press hard for the apprehension and transfer of all those indicted by the ICTY, including Ratko Mladic.

  Nepal
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Nepal. [80750]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We remain extremely concerned about the conflict in Nepal, which has seen a continuing loss of life, a reduction in development and human rights abuses.

  We support the Nepalese Government's efforts in combating the Maoist insurgency and we condemn the Maoist's brutal attacks on the Nepalese security forces and her civilians.

  The political situation in Nepal remains fragile following the appointment of a caretaker government by the King of Nepal, but we have seen some positive progress by the new Government, including on issues such as anti-corruption measures and economic reform. While we acknowledge that the regrettable security situation has prevented the holding of elections, we believe that the preservation of the constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy are crucial. It is important that free, fair and credible elections are held as soon as the security situation allows.

  The UK will continue to provide support for Nepal for security development and peace-building. The UK hosted an international meeting in June, which concluded that an integrated strategy encompassing these strands was required to address the underlying causes of the conflict as well as immediately dealing with the insurgency. We are currently taking forward this strategy through the newly-formed International Support Group, which includes representatives from all the major donor countries and organisations in Kathmandu. I had the privilege to chair the first meeting during my trip to Nepal last month.

  Our development programme in Nepal is £22 million this year, and has been restructured, in the light of the conflict, to emphasise the delivery of tangible benefits to poor and excluded groups. An additional £6.7 million has been made available this year through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool.

  Peru
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he plans to make to the Peruvian Government concerning the imprisonment of the trade union activist Walter Cubas Baltazar. [80642]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our Embassy in Lima raised the matter with the Ministry of Justice in July. The Peruvian authorities have not yet decided on this case. Our Embassy will continue to monitor closely this and all
  47W
  other similar cases. The FCO contributes to human rights work in Peru in areas such as Freedom of Information and the work of the Ombudsman.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China in relation to the siting of missiles in the Taiwan Straits. [80129]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have made no representations specifically about missiles. However, we attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Straits, which could be very destabilising for the whole of the region and beyond. We take the view that the Taiwan question should be settled peacefully through negotiation between the people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. We are strongly opposed to the use of force. We take every suitable opportunity to convey our views to the Chinese Government.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department supports the proposal of the European Parliament that an EU trade office be opened in Taiwan; and if he will make a statement. [81037]

  Mr. Rammell
  We understand that preparations for the establishment of an appropriate EU trade representative office in Taiwan are already under way and we welcome this development.

  Visas
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being put in place to deal with the increase in visa applications at(a) the British embassy in Addis Ababa and (b) other diplomatic missions in Africa [80585]

  Mr. Rammell
  Visa applications worldwide for the UK are rising by 6.5 per cent. a year. We are modernising our process and procedures to tackle this. Earlier this year we introduced a number of streamlining measures in Addis Ababa and other parts of Africa. These measures are aimed at resolving applications more efficiently without compromising the quality of decision making. We have also agreed funding for two additional officers in the visa section at Addis Ababa.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the daily banking operations of UK high commissions and embassies in relation to the granting of visas; which currencies are accepted; what basis is used for calculating local exchange rates; which national or international banking institutions are used to hold accounts; which companies conduct audits; and what differences there are to such practices in(a) Afghanistan, (b) Albania, (c) Algeria, (d) Angola, (e) Argentina, (f) Azerbaijan, (g) Bangladesh, (h) Benin, (i) Bosnia-Herzegovina, (j) Botswana, (k) Burma, (1) Cameroon, (m) Chile, (n) China, (o) Colombia, (p) Congo Republic, (q) Democratic Republic of Congo, (r) Ivory Coast, (s) Cuba, (t) Egypt, (u) Eritrea, (v) Ethiopia, (w) India, (x) Indonesia, (y) Iran, (z) Israel, (aa) Kazakhstan, (bb) Liberia, (cc) Libya, (dd) Macedonia, (ee) Malawi,
  48W
  (ff) Malaysia, (gg) Mexico, (hh) Mozambique, (ii) Nigeria, (jj) North Korea, (kk) Pakistan, (ll) Philippines, (mm) Romania, (nn) Russian Federation, (oo) Rwanda, (pp) Sierra Leone, (qq) South Africa, (rr) Sudan, (ss) Syria, (tt) Tanzania, (uu) Turkey, (vv) Uganda, (ww) United States, (xx) Venezuela, (yy) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, (zz) Zambia, (aaa) Zimbabwe and (bbb) euro-zone countries. [81168]

  Mr. Straw
  Embassies and High Commissions are required to operate under the Consular Fees Regulations 1981 (Statutory Instrument 476 of 1981). This states that "fees shall be paid in currency circulating at the place of payment, except that a consular officer shall have discretion to accept, in lieu of such currency, a cheque, money order, or other means of effecting payment in terms of that currency. The rate of exchange for calculating the equivalent of fees in terms of a foreign currency shall be based upon the rate of exchange which is generally prevailing on the date, and at the place of payment, but which may be adjusted by the consular officer in such a manner and to such extent as he considers to be expedient in the interests of administrative efficiency".

  The same rate of exchange is set for all posts in a country. The exchange rate used in euro-zone countries is set by the British Consulate General in Dusseldorf since the headquarters of the European Central Bank is based in Germany.

  Visa and consular fees are deposited into posts' official bank accounts. The decision as to which bank is used is taken by each individual post.

  All overseas posts' operations are liable to review from our own Ukvisas Reviews section, FCO's internal audit department and also to national audit office scrutiny.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Horticulture Review
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the completion date is for the Review of the Horticulture Sector; and what the timescale is for consultation by the agricultural industry. [80111]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Review of the Northern Ireland Horticulture Sector was commissioned earlier this year to identify strategic opportunities for the development of the sector and provide a Development Plan for the future of the industry. I am pleased to report that the review has now been finalised and it is expected that publication of the Consultants' Report will be announced within the next two weeks.

  This is a wide-ranging review across all of the main sectors of horticulture and the views of industry stakeholders will be critically important in helping government determine future policy for the sector. For that reason it is intended to allow a 12 week period for consultation with due regard for the Christmas holiday period. The comments of those engaged in the industry will be most welcome and a detailed announcement on consultation arrangements will be made when the Report is published.
  49W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Basic Education
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to basic education. [81167]

  Clare Short
  The Government are strongly committed to mobilising the international community to meet the education and gender equality targets within the Millennium Development Goals. We have fully achieved the goals in this area set in our current Public Service Agreement, but recognise that there is still a huge challenge in getting to the 2015 objectives.

  Since 1997 we have committed £700 million to basic education and forecast support amounts to £1.3 billion over the next five years, either through education sector support or direct budget support. Of this, about £500 million will go to Africa and £800 million to Asia. These spending figures are forecasts, not targets or commitments, and depend on agreeing high quality programmes with our partners.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and (b) visitors to her Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81856]

  Clare Short
  There are no car parking spaces generally available to either employees or visitors, within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. The only spaces we have are for the three official cars, one disabled space, and one for the maintenance contractor vehicle.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81836]

  Clare Short
  Where Central Loon road user charges are necessarily incurred in the course of official business they will be reimbursed in the same way as any other legitimate expense. Charges will not be reimbursed where they form part of the cost of daily home to office travel.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated cost is to her Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81875]

  Clare Short
  The only direct costs that will be incurred by my Department are in respect of the three official vehicles. We estimate that the costs of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for the period 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003 to be around £400, and for the full financial year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 to be around £3,000.

  Environmental and Social Objectives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals the 50W
  Department has to follow up the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development with more environmental and social objectives. [81055]

  Clare Short
  The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) placed poverty eradication at the heart of efforts to achieve Sustainable development. It integrated sustainability into the existing international agenda and added some important new targets, such as the target of halving the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.

  My Department does not have any proposals for more environmental and social objectives following WSSD. We are working to ensure that the international community delivers on the promises it made at the Doha meeting of the World Trade Organisation, the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development and at Johannesburg. We are working for a round of trade negotiations focused on making the international trade system fairer to developing countries, and to ensure that the commitments made at Monterrey to increase the level and improve the effectiveness of official development assistance are delivered.

  Gender Disparity
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education in developing countries; and what her Department's strategy is for meeting targets related to this. [80554]

  Clare Short
  According to the recently published EFA Global Monitoring Report, girls' enrolment in primary school in developing countries improved in the 1990s. The girls' Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) increased by 4 percentage points, from 91.8 per cent. in 1990 to 96.2 per cent. in 1999. The Gender Parity Index (GPI), which measures the ratio between girls' and boys' enrolment rates, improved from 0.86 to 0.92 in developing countries.

  Gender-disaggregated data on secondary education is less readily available. The participation rates for girls are increasing, but where there are major gender disparities in primary education, this is amplified at the secondary level; hence some of the lowest levels of secondary enrolment for girls are in Central and West Africa.

  We are collaborating with a variety of partners to accelerate progress for girls' education. We are working with the UN Girls' Education Initiative to ensure stronger co-ordination among donors at the global and the national level. We are supporting a partnership with the World bank and UNICEF to develop sustainable strategies for girls' education in several countries. We have built close links with the gender unit in the Education group at the World bank to foster better integration of gender issues with international education initiatives.

  We have three initiatives under way to give greater support to DFID country advisers to address girls' education and mainstream it in their work. We have developed a manual on girls' education, which is currently being disseminated. We are working to provide gender modules for inclusion in existing training courses.

  51W
  We have improved access to key policy documents and practical tools by establishing a joint World bank/ UNICEF/DFID website (www.girlseducation.org).

  We are also supporting southern civil society organisations, including the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) in four countries (Rwanda, Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi).

  Rwanda and Uganda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her meeting with the Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda on 17 October 2002. [80889]

  Clare Short
  The meeting was the second review of the Memorandum of Understanding Presidents Museveni and Kagame and I signed in November last year at Lancaster House. They committed themselves again to not interfering in each others' political and security affairs. They agreed to make more effective use of the mechanisms that had been put in place to resolve differences and to avoid recourse to the use of the media. The UK agreed to continue to act as third party in this process.

  Equally importantly the two Presidents agreed to work together to achieve peace and stability in the region. They urged President Mbeki of South Africa, as Chairman of the African Union, to convene a Regional Summit to call on all parties to fully implement the Pretoria and Luanda Agreements.

  Presidents Museveni and Kagame shared our concern at the situation in Burundi and agreed we should work together, especially with the Governments of Tanzania and South Africa, to get a get a cease fire agreed and support the Transitional National Government under the Arusha Accords.

  Safe Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts the

  Date

  Country

  Description

  Total £ million

  September 2001

  Zimbabwe

  NGO feeding programme

  4.0

  Zimbabwe

  WFP Emergency Appeal

  3.5

  Malawi

  Targeted Inputs programme

  3.75

  January May 2002

  Malawi

  NGO feeding programmes

  4.4

  Malawi

  Winter Inputs programme

  1.2

  June 2002

  Zimbabwe

  WFP Regional Emergency Feeding Operation

  7.0

  Lesotho

  WFP Regional Emergency Feeding Operation

  1.56

  Malawi

  WFP Regional Emergency Feeding Operation

  5.0

  Swaziland

  WFP Regional Emergency Feeding Operation

  0.25

  Zambia

  WFP Regional Emergency Feeding Operation

  5.0

  Zambia

  NGO food for work programme

  1.02

  Region

  WFP logistical support in Johannesburg regional hub, Lesotho and Zimbabwe

  0.51

  Region

  SADC vulnerability assessments to improve targeting

  0.2

  Region

  IFRC Feeding HIV/AIDS affected people

  2.5

  Region

  WHO regional health operation

  0.13

  Malawi

  Targeted inputs programme

  6.8

  Zimbabwe

  NGO agricultural inputs

  5.0

  Zimbabwe

  WHO essential drugs and medicines

  2.5

  September 2002

  Zimbabwe

  NGO feeding programme

  16.0

  Malawi/Region

  Nacala Rail-link

  4.1

  52W
  Government has made to ensure that the commitments made at the Johannesburg Summit to provide access to safe water are kept by all states. [81056]

  Clare Short
  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including the target to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, provide the focus of my Department's work. We are working to build an effective response by the international system to support developing countries in reducing poverty and achieving the MDGs. This includes supporting the United Nations Development Programme in monitoring progress by country towards the MDGs.

  An integrated approach water supply, sanitation and hygiene is the best way to improve health and combat poverty. We currently support three major multilateral initiatives:
  The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a multi-donor programme administered by the World Bank. Its mission is to eradicate poverty by helping the poor gain sustained access to improved water and sanitation services.
  The Global Water Partnership, an international network to foster integrated water resource management

  The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC), a concerted multi-donor organization designed to raise awareness and the political profile of sanitation, hygiene and safe water.

  In addition to multilateral co-operation, our commitment to achieve the 2015 water and sanitation targets includes bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, south Africa, Uganda, and Nigeria. My Department also supports UNICEF's water, environment and sanitation programme.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what emergency aid has been provided to Southern Africa in recent months. [80751]

  Clare Short
  We have made the following bilateral commitments since September 2001 in response to the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa:
  53W

  Date

  Country

  Description

  Total £ million

  October 2002

  Zambia

  Agricultural recovery through NGO's and FAO

  1.5

  Zambia

  Improved nutrition programme

  1.2

  Zambia

  Support to the health sector

  0.2

  Region

  OCHA Southern African Humanitarian Information Service

  0.11

  Region

  Southern Africa Humanitarian Crisis Unit for monitoring and liaison

  0.5

  Lesotho

  Livelihoods recovery through agriculture programme

  1.0

  Zimbabwe

  Epidemic preparedness

  1.2

  Zimbabwe

  Improved nutrition programme

  1.1

  Total since September 2001

  Humanitarian assistance and recovery programmes

  81.23

  Breakdown by country since September 2001

  Country

  Malawi

  25.25

  Zimbabwe

  40.3

  Lesotho

  2.56

  Swaziland

  0.25

  Zambia

  8.92

  Regional

  3.95

  In addition, our contribution to commitments by the European Commission to date is about £21.3 million.

  Southern Africa

    Zimbabwe
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department has detailed contingency plans for delivering food to the people of Zimbabwe in the event of an emergency. [80575]

    Clare Short
    The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is already an emergency to which my Department has been responding for over a year. To date we have committed more than £38 million for emergency food provision, health care, agricultural inputs, and monitoring. This has been successfully channelled through UN agencies and non-governmental partners.

    We are working closely with the internationally mandated organisations to ensure that appropriate contingency plans are in place for a number of scenarios, including the displacement of people. In the event of deterioration in the situation, we will continue to work with agencies already operational on the ground, with the capability, capacity, and access to deliver assistance.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Correspondence
    David Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 17 October regarding a constituent, ref: 517205. [81071]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: I regret that I am unable to trace this letter from the details given. If further information on the constituent's name and address could be forwarded to me, I will be happy to investigate the matter further.

    David Winnick
    To ask the Secreary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 16 September, regarding a constituent, ref:19031/2. [81094]
    54W
    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: A reply to the letter was sent on 12 November. I apologise for the delay in replying.

    National Asylum Support Service (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress has been made with the inquiry conducted into NASS supervision of Landmark Co. in Liverpool; and what change he proposes to make in relation to NASS. [81100]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The independent inquiry team has completed its investigation and I am expecting to receive the final report shortly. Until I have seen and considered the report I cannot say whether any changes will be made in relation to National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

    Police Officers (Nottinghamshire)
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the number of police officers in Nottinghamshire Constabulary's 'B' Division. [80704]

    Mr. Denham
    The deployment of Nottinghamshire Police officers is a matter for the Chief Constable to determine. At the end of March 2002 Nottinghamshire Police had 2,330 police officers, 55 more than in March 2001. The force also had 1,087 civilian support staff at the end of March, 48 more than in March of last year.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    School Transport
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what quality standards are in place for home-to-school transport; and what changes to these standards(a) have taken place and (b) are planned. [81731]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    LEA contracted home-to-school transport services are covered by Best Value, which was introduced in the Local Government Act 1999 as a means of securing greater value for money from local government services. Best Value is a statutory requirement for local authorities.

    Should schools choose to purchase their own transport services DfES has produced the 'Purchasing Guide for Schools' which offers a working guide for

    55W
    school managers to help them set high quality standards when procuring and managing school transport contracts.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what funding mechanisms are available directly from his Department to(a) local authorities and (b) other education bodies for improving school transport in order to improve child truancy rates; and what the total amount paid from his Department was for improving school transport in each year since 1992; [81735]

    (2) what research has been conducted and is planned by his Department on the implications on child truancy rates of changes in home-to-school transport which have taken place and which could arise from additional improvements in home-to-school transport. [81734]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    We are currently conducting research into the causes of absence from school in order to fully understand the issues. We are not specifically looking at truancy in relation to home-to-school transport, as previous research has not shown there to be a link. There is no funding directly available for improving school transport in order to improve child truancy rates

    The DfES has spent the following amounts on home-to- school transport since 1992:

    Total (£ million)

    Percentage annual rise in expenditure

    1992–93

    293

    —

    1993–94

    288

    —

    1994–95

    319

    11

    1995–96

    345

    8

    1996–97

    382

    11

    1997–98

    418

    9

    1998–99

    444

    6

    1999–2000

    485

    9

    2000–011

    532

    10

    1 provisional

    Classroom Assistants (Ilford, North)
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve the(a) pay, (b) training and (c) career prospects of classroom assistants in Ilford, North. [80538]

    Mr. Miliband
    The pay of teaching assistants is a matter for local authorities and schools to determine. A consultative document "Developing the role of school support staff" was published on 22 October, and sets out plans for career routes and the creation of standards and training for a new higher level role for teaching assistants. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

    Departmental Website
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Department's website is managed internally or externally of the Department. [80593]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    small core team within the Department for Education and Skills, run the Department's website, including managing a range of 56W
    key partners who provide particular website services, for example: hosting of the website; design and building of new sub sites; user research and site measurement

    Dyslexia
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place to assist pupils/students with specific learning disabilities, with particular reference to dyslexia, when they are completing tests or examinations; and if he will make a statement. [80818]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    A wide range of special arrangements are in place to assist pupils with special educational needs, including those with specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, when they come to take tests and examinations

    The arrangements for dyslexic candidates taking public examinations are determined by the relevant awarding bodies. The most common arrangement permitted for such candidates is additional time in which to complete the examination. The use of readers, writers and word processors are also permitted in exceptional circumstances. Appropriate evidence must support each case, and the decision rests with the awarding body

    Special arrangements are also permitted in relation to the National Curriculum Assessment Key Stage tests. Details of these are set out in the "Assessment and Reporting Arrangements" booklets produced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, sent to all schools in England in October of the year before the tests are due to be taken. When considering what special arrangements might be needed, the focus should always be on the needs of the individual child. Arrangements might range from additional time to the use of readers, amanuenses, transcripts, communicators, signers, and rest breaks.

    Education Projects (Buckinghamshire)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the projects to which his Department has allocated funding in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire since 1 January 1997, indicating the amount in each case. [81187]

    Mr. Miliband
    The following tables show the total amounts provided by the Department through the standards fund and capital programmes in the Chesham and Amersham constituency and Buckinghamshire local education authority since 1997–98. Chesham and Amersham figures are part of the Buckinghamshire figures.

    It is not possible to give the standards fund allocations within the Chesham and Amersham constituency. The standards fund includes both Government grant and local authority contributions. Copies of tables giving a breakdown of the funding for these programmes have been placed in the House of Commons Library.
    57W

    Chesham and Amersham Constituency

    £

    Year

    Voluntary aided schools capital

    New deal for schools capital1

    1997–98

    —

    —

    1998–99

    531,568

    119,633

    1999–2000

    194,067

    406,000

    2000–01

    180,137

    1,328,250

    2001–02

    124,100

    —

    2002–03

    340,119

    —

    1 Since 2000–01 capital support has been allocated to LEAs and schools on a formulaic basis. Buckinghamshire LEA will have details of funding going to individual schools.

    Buckingham local education authority

    £

    Year

    Standards fund

    Voluntary aided schools capital

    New deal for schools capital

    1997–98

    2,947,244

    135,037

    564,000

    1998–99

    5,494,901

    648,466

    1,088,633

    1999–2000

    10,542,386

    520,335

    1,622,015

    2000–01

    15,498,610

    460,299

    5,543,081

    2001–02

    19,417,523

    762,071

    5,600,000

    2002–03

    21,457,110

    6,928,634

    10,300,00

    Higher Education Finance
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has paid to universities in each of the past two years as special payments arising from the normal residence of students being in specified postcode areas. [81820]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocated £27 million in the 2001–02 academic year and £36 million in 2002–03 to higher education institutions in England in connection with the education of students from specified postcode areas.

    IT Security
    Brian White
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80773]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Department for Education and Skills has a dedicated team to assure that the Department's network and data are secure from attack. They have recently undertaken an exercise to achieve compliance with the Information Security Standard (BS7799) and all systems follow guidance outlined in the Central Government Manual of Protective Security.

    There were no digital attacks reported in either October or the whole of 2002.

    Local Government Funding
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representations his Department has received from Eddisbury constituency residents about local government funding in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the arguments in those representations. [81265]
    58W
    Mr. Miliband
    The Department has answered 88 letters in connection with the funding of schools in Cheshire over the last year. Six of these letters were from the hon. Member, but it is not possible to identify which Cheshire constituency the rest came from. In addition a number of Cheshire residents responded to the consultation on Local Government Funding reform which closed on 30 September: to identify precisely these letters from among the very large numbers of responses to the consultation would incur disproportionate cost.

    We are carefully considering all responses to the consultation document and will publish an analysis by the time of the provisional settlement for 2003–04, when we will announce decisions on the new funding system.

    Qualifications (Children in Care)
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research his Department has conducted into the educational qualifications obtained by children in residential care compared to those of similar ages in the general population; and if he will make a statement. [80472]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The Department has recently conducted (or been involved in) extensive research into the educational qualifications of looked after children although these research projects have not looked exclusively at children in residential care homes. Available evidence suggests that children in residential care have much poorer outcomes than those in a stable foster care placement.

    Figures on the educational achievements of care leavers are collected by the Department of Health. Full data is available on these achievements for 6,555 children who left care in the year ending March 2001. Of these just over a quarter (n=1,715) were in residential placements. Among this group, 22 per cent. achieved one or more GCSEs compared to 41 per cent. of those in other types of placements—Department of Health (2001).

    The Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Local Government Association have commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to undertake research into the educational achievement at Key Stage 4 of children in public care. This research is exploring in greater depth the Key Stage 4 performance of a cohort of pupils who were in public care in summer 2001. This includes children in residential care homes.

    The Department has also just commissioned NFER to conduct research to identify best practice among schools and LEAs in helping these children to fulfil their educational potential. The research will include children in residential care homes although they will not be a specific focus of the research. The Department has also been working closely with the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) on its project on raising the educational attainment of children in care. The SEU will report in early 2003.

    Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to publish a Memorandum of Understanding on the relationship
    59W
    between his Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and if he will make a statement. [81079]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 18 November2002]: We will be preparing the Memorandum of Understanding in the light of the findings of Mike Tomlinson's report on longer term issues concerning examination standards and the role of QCA and the awarding bodies. We expect to receive this report at the end of November.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the Quinquennial Review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and if he will make a statement. [81080]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: I welcome the Quinquennial Review report on QCA published in the summer. Since then new issues have arisen in the examination system, and a new chair and chief executive have been appointed at QCA. I look forward to receiving the authority's response to the report before the end of the year.

    School Violence
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to reduce(a)the number and (b) the seriousness of incidences of violence in schools. [80534]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    I am very concerned to prevent violence in schools. We have invested in a major programme to improve pupil behaviour through systematic early intervention to reduce the likelihood of serious incidents. £66 million was made available in this year's Budget to the local education authorities with the highest crime levels, to promote good behaviour and tackle poor behaviour. This can be used partly towards personal safety training for staff.

    We have also published a free guidance pack entitled "Bullying: don't Suffer in Silence" and I would encourage all schools to obtain a copy. It provides detailed advice on preventing bullying and violence between pupils. In addition we have made clear that where necessary head teachers can permanently exclude pupils responsible for violence against members of the school community.

    Earlier this year we published "A legal toolkit for schools", which is free publication summarising the range of legal remedies available to schools when staff face violence or threatening behaviour from parents.

    Schools Grant (Buckinghamshire)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants were made through the school improvement grant in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b)Buckinghamshire in 2001–02. [81185]

    Mr. Miliband
    Standards fund grants are allocated to local education authorities, so figures for Chesham and Amersham are not available. A total of £2.19 million 60W
    was allocated to Buckinghamshire through the Standards Fund School Improvement Grant in the 2001–02 financial year, of which:
    £1.31 million was required to be devolved to all maintained schools to raise levels of pupil attainment by funding activities in school development, post-Ofsted and raising attainment plans;
    £350,000 was targeted at schools in special measures and secondary schools facing challenging circumstances to bring about urgent improvements; and
    £446,000 was available to support direct interventions in schools facing challenging circumstances or support the priorities set out in Buckinghamshire's Educational Development Plans

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly qualified teachers in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire were entitled to induction support in 2001–02. [81183]

    Mr. Miliband
    All Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) who take-up a post of one term or more in a maintained school, or non-maintained special school, are entitled to induction.

    During the 2001–02 academic year, a total of 195 NQTs undertook induction in Buckinghamshire, of which 53 were in the constituency of Chesham and Amersham.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will ensure that no schools in(a)Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire have a cash budget cut in the next financial year. [81188]

    Mr. Miliband
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 6 November 2002,Official Report, column 396W.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representations his Department has received in connection with the funding of(a) schools and (b) school pupils in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire over the last year. [81191]

    Mr. Miliband
    The Department has answered 10 letters in connection with the funding of schools in Buckinghamshire over the last year. Two of these letters were from the hon. Member, and it is not possible to identify which Buckinghamshire constituency the rest came from.

    In addition a number of Buckinghamshire residents responded to the consultation on Local Government Funding reform which closed on 30 September: to identify precisely these letters from among the very large numbers of responses to the consultation would incur disproportionate cost.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the secondary schools in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire which conduct cognitive ability tests in year 7. [81181]

    Mr. Miliband
    Cognitive ability tests for year 7 are commercial tests which schools can purchase if they wish. As such, the Department has no records of their usage on an individual school, local education authority, or national basis.
    61W
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent through the standards fund on teaching assistants in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in 2001–02. [81184]

    Mr. Miliband
    Details of standards fund expenditure by local education authorities for 2001–02 are not held centrally. Some £197 million was made available to authorities in 2001–02 through standards fund grant for the recruitment and training of teaching assistants, of which £1.732 million went to Buckinghamshire. 95 per cent. of this grant was required to be devolved to schools. Schools have freedom to move funding between standards fund headings according to their own detailed needs and priorities.

    Information on standards fund allocations and expenditure is not collected at constituency level.

    State Secondary Schools
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the different types of state secondary school. [81255]

    Mr. Miliband
    Maintained schools, both primary and secondary, are divided into the following categories:

    1. Community schools

    2. Foundation schools

    3. Voluntary schools comprising:

    a. voluntary aided schools

    b. voluntary controlled schools

    4. Community special schools

    5. Foundation special schools

    Teacher Protection
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what protection is given to teachers who have violent and aggressive pupils who pose a threat to their safety. [80980]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Violence, threatening behaviour and abuse against school staff or other members of the school community will not be tolerated. Section 64 of the School Standards and Framework Act gives a headteacher the authority to permanently exclude a pupil. Departmental guidance makes it clear that violent and aggressive pupils who pose a risk to teachers' or other pupils' safety can be permanently excluded for a first offence. The Secretary of State would normally regard it as inappropriate to re-instate a pupil who has been permanently excluded in circumstances involving actual or threatened violence against another pupil or member of staff.

    Section 550A of the Education Act 1996 clarifies the powers of teachers, and other staff to use reasonable force to prevent pupils posing a threat to their safety in committing a crime, or causing injury, damage or disruption.

    Further guidance is available in the form of a Departmental Circular 10/98, "Section 550A of the Education Act 1996: The Use of force to Control or Restrain Pupils". An additional guidance document is available for staff working in special schools catering for pupils with severe behavioural difficulties. This joint
    62W
    DfES/Department of Health guidance is entitled "Circular 0242/2002 Guidance on the Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions for Staff Working with Children and Adults who Display Extreme Behaviour in Association with Learning Disability and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorders".

    Section 550A clarifies the general principle that anyone has the right to defend themselves against an attack provided they do not use a disproportionate degree of force to do so.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been assaulted by pupils in each year since 1997. [80981]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    My Department has not collected this information. However, 135 serious injuries to teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence were reported to the Health and Safety Executive in both 1999–2000 and 2000–01; data for 2001–02 is not yet available. This figure includes major injuries, and also injuries which resulted in more than three days' absence from work, as a result of assault reported to the HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. Information is not available on whether the assaults were carried out by pupils, parents or others.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to ensure that teachers who protect themselves from violent pupils are not prosecuted; and if he will make a statement. [80982]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Section 550A of the Education Act 1996 clarifies the powers of teachers, and other staff to use reasonable force to prevent pupils committing a crime, or causing injury, damage or disruption. Further guidance is available in the form of a Departmental Circular 10/98, "Section 550A of the Education Act 1996: The Use of force to Control or Restrain Pupils". An additional guidance document is available for staff working in special schools catering for pupils with severe behavioural difficulties. This joint DIES/Department of Health guidance is entitled "Circular 0242/2002 Guidance on the Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions for Staff Working with Children and Adults who Display Extreme Behaviour in Association with Learning Disability and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorders".

    Section 550A clarifies the general principle that anyone has the right to defend themselves against an attack provided they do not use a disproportionate degree of force to do so. Although there can be no guarantee that teachers who defend themselves from violent pupils will not be prosecuted, the Crown Prosecution Service would examine whether the use and degree of force was reasonable in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the provisions in section 550A of the Education Act 1996. In looking at individual cases they are also likely to take account of the school's policy on restraint, whether that had been followed, and the need to prevent injury, damage, or disruption.
    63W

    Teacher's Pay
    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average salary cost is per teacher in each of the shire education authorities in England. [80598]

    Mr. Miliband
    The table shows the average salary and the average salary cost. The metropolitan authorities have been excluded, giving a table consisting of the LEAs that used to be classed as the shire counties.

    Teachersl average salary by Local Education Authority 2

    London Education Authority

    Average salary March3 2001 (£)

    Average salary Cost4(£)

    Isles of Scilly

    27,000

    31,023

    Bath & NE Somerset

    5—

    5—

    City of Bristol

    26,384

    30,315

    North Somerset

    26,915

    30,925

    South Gloucestershire

    26,478

    30,424

    Hartlepool

    26,749

    30,734

    Middlesbrough

    27,181

    31,231

    Redcar and Cleveland

    26,901

    30,910

    Stockton on Tees

    26,900

    30,908

    City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

    27,105

    31,144

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    27,187

    31,238

    North East Lincolnshire

    27,175

    31,224

    North Lincolnshire

    27,148

    31,194

    North Yorkshire

    5—

    5—

    York

    26,909

    30,919

    Bedfordshire

    26,971

    30,990

    Luton

    26,929

    30,941

    Buckinghamshire

    26,971

    30,990

    Milton Keynes

    26,678

    30,652

    Derbyshire

    27,351

    31,426

    Derby

    26,572

    30,531

    Dorset

    26,968

    30,986

    Poole

    26,800

    30,793

    Bournemouth

    27,180

    31,229

    Durham

    26,738

    30,722

    Darlington

    25,379

    29,160

    East Sussex

    26,996

    31,019

    Brighton & Hove

    26,963

    30,981

    Hampshire

    26,767

    30,755

    Portsmouth

    26,712

    30,692

    Southampton

    26,276

    30,191

    Leicestershire

    27,006

    31,030

    Leicester City

    5—

    5—

    Rutland

    27,381

    31,461

    Staffordshire

    26,707

    30,687

    Stoke

    26,601

    30,565

    Wiltshire

    25,663

    29,487

    Swindon

    26,012

    29,888

    Bracknell Forest

    27,763

    31,900

    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

    27,752

    31,888

    West Berkshire

    5—

    5—

    Reading

    5—

    5—

    Slough

    5—

    5—

    Wokingham

    26,842

    30,842

    Cambridgeshire

    5—

    5—

    City of Peterborough

    26,360

    30,288

    Cheshire

    26,837

    30,836

    Halton

    27,054

    31,085

    Warrington

    26,757

    30,744

    Devon

    27,075

    31,109

    City of Plymouth

    27,237

    31,296

    Torbay

    5—

    5—

    Essex

    27,534

    31,637

    Southend

    27,501

    31,599

    Thurrock

    27,104

    31,142

    Herefordshire

    26,910

    30,920

    Worcestershire

    26,952

    30,967

    Kent

    27,089

    31,125

    Medway

    5—

    5—

    Lancashire

    27,276

    31,340

    Blackburn and Darwen

    26,196

    30,099

    Blackpool

    26,519

    30,470

    Nottinghamshire

    27,497

    31,594

    64W

    Teachers'1 average salary by Local Education Authority 2.

    London Education Authority

    Average salary March32001 (£)

    Average salary Cost4 (£)

    City of Nottingham

    26,907

    30,916

    York

    26,909

    30,919

    Bedfordshire

    26,971

    30,990

    Luton

    26,929

    30,941

    Buckinghamshire

    26,971

    30,990

    Milton Keynes

    26,678

    30,652

    Derbyshire

    27,351

    31,426

    Derby

    26,572

    30,531

    Dorset

    26,968

    30,986

    Poole

    26,800

    30,793

    Bournemouth

    27,180

    31,229

    Durham

    26,738

    30,722

    Darlington

    25,379

    29,160

    East Sussex

    26,996

    31,019

    Brighton & Hove

    26,963

    30,981

    Hampshire

    26,767

    30,755

    Portsmouth

    26,712

    30,692

    Southampton

    26,276

    30,191

    Leicestershire

    27,006

    31,030

    Leicester City

    Rutland

    27,381

    31,461

    Staffordshire

    26,707

    30,687

    Stoke

    26,601

    30,565

    Wiltshire

    25,663

    29,487

    Swindon

    26,012

    29,888

    Bracknell Forest

    27,763

    31,900

    Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

    27,752

    31,888

    West Berkshire

    5—

    5—

    Reading

    5—

    5—

    Slough

    5—

    5—

    Wokingham

    26,842

    30,842

    Cambridgeshire

    5—

    5—

    City of Peterborough

    26,360

    30,288

    Cheshire

    26,837

    30,836

    Halton

    27,054

    31,085

    Warrington

    26,757

    30,744

    Devon

    27,075

    31,109

    City of Plymouth

    27,237

    31,296

    Torbay

    5—

    5—

    Essex

    27,534

    31,637

    Southend

    27,501

    31,599

    Thurrock

    27,104

    31,142

    Herefordshire

    26,910

    30,920

    Worcestershire

    26,952

    30,967

    Kent

    27,089

    31,125

    Medway

    5—

    5—

    Lancashire

    27,276

    31,340

    Blackburn and Darwen

    26,196

    30,099

    Blackpool

    26,519

    30,470

    Nottinghamshire

    27,497

    31,594

    City of Nottingham

    26,907

    30,916

    Shropshire

    27,413

    31,497

    Telford and Wrekin

    27,217

    31,273

    Cornwall

    27,071

    31,105

    Cumbria

    27,089

    31,125

    Gloucestershire

    5—

    5—

    Hertfordshire

    25,312

    29,083

    Isle of Wight

    26,491

    30,438

    Lincolnshire

    26,924

    30,936

    Norfolk

    27,128

    31,170

    Northamptonshire

    26,644

    30,614

    Northumberland

    26,794

    30,786

    Oxfordshire

    27,077

    31,112

    Somerset

    27,334

    31,406

    Suffolk

    26,548

    30,504

    Surrey

    25,622

    29,440

    Warwickshire

    26,962

    30,980

    West Sussex

    26,811

    30,806

    1Includes full time teachers from the leadership group and classroom teachers.

    2 Excluding metropolitan LEAs and London boroughs.

    3 Average salary of full-time teachers in the maintained sector of England. Figures cover all grades and include any allowances paid. Figures exclude sixth form colleges. The salary figures include threshold pay increases. However, they do not include threshold pay increases relating to people who passed the threshold in September 2000 and had not received their payment

    65W
    by March 2001. This money was backdated after March 2001 and therefore the average salary for March 2001 will be understated.

    4 Average salary cost includes employment costs.

    5–Not available.

    Source:

    EVES database of teacher records.

    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of classroom teachers are on the top of the main scale or have progressed through the upper pay spine in each education authority in England. [80594]

    Mr. Miliband
    The following table shows the latest available teacher data.

    Percentage1 of qualified classroom teachers on point 9 of the main pay scale andthe post-threshold scale as at 31 March 20012.

    Maintained schools sector in England

    Main scale point 9

    Upper pay scale Not known

    Not known3

    City of London

    8.3

    0.0

    33.3

    Camden

    21.9

    29.8

    12.3

    Greenwich

    54.7

    10.0

    2.7

    Hackney

    17.9

    0.2

    20.3

    Hammersmith

    18.5

    31.8

    16.9

    Islington

    32.8

    5.1

    25.2

    Kensington and Chelsea

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Lambeth

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Lewisham

    22.2

    34.1

    10.2

    Southwark

    39.9

    2.5

    20.4

    Tower Hamlets

    40.7

    4.1

    30.9

    Wandsworth

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Westminster

    13.2

    2.1

    28.9

    Barking

    19.6

    35.8

    4.3

    Barnet

    23.2

    36.9

    3.4

    Bexley

    20.1

    39.7

    2.9

    Brent

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Bromley

    20.3

    26.7

    18.3

    Croydon

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Ealing

    28.4

    30.6

    2.7

    Enfield

    46.0

    11.3

    8.4

    Haringey

    20.1

    38.4

    8.7

    Harrow

    12.1

    45.7

    26.5

    Havering

    15.4

    43.4

    14.5

    Hillingdon

    16.7

    32.7

    11.1

    Hounslow

    17.4

    38.4

    2.2

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Merton

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Newham

    22.9

    26.1

    0.4

    Redbridge

    15.3

    45.2

    7.1

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    26.2

    17.7

    29.7

    Sutton

    3—

    3—

    3—

    Waltham Forest

    33.5

    31.4

    3.3

    Birmingham

    15.8

    48.9

    3.4

    Coventry

    12.0

    53.4

    1.2

    Dudley

    16.6

    50.4

    2.0

    Sandwell

    20.4

    44.2

    0.9

    Solihull

    20.6

    10.8

    2.8

    Walsall

    22.0

    15.2

    6.4

    Wolverhampton

    23.1

    48.3

    2.8

    Knowsley

    16.6

    44.5

    3.1

    Liverpool

    66.1

    1.0

    4.9

    St. Helens

    12.6

    58.2

    1.6

    Sefton

    12.4

    50.5

    6.3

    Wirral

    11.2

    57.9

    8.5

    Bolton

    14.9

    50.1

    6.1

    Bury

    15.7

    59.0

    0.5

    Manchester

    16.5

    24.9

    24.5

    Oldham

    16.6

    48.1

    2.2

    Rochdale

    14.9

    48.7

    5.4

    Salford

    19.0

    1.1

    12.6

    Stockport

    15.3

    53.1

    5.0

    Tameside

    11.9

    53.4

    4.2

    Trafford

    10.5

    49.5

    13.6

    Wigan

    12.1

    56.3

    4.9

    Barnsley

    18.9

    48.0

    16.2

    Doncaster

    17.1

    51.8

    4.5

    Rotherham

    15.3

    54.3

    4.2

    Sheffield

    29.8

    33.6

    10.5

    Bradford

    25.1

    47.3

    2.4

    66W

    Percentage 1of qualified classroom teachers on point 9 of the main pay scale andthe post-threshold scale as at 31 March 2001 2

    Maintained schools sector in England

    Main scale point 9

    Upper pay scale

    Not known 3

    Calderdale

    19.4

    43.6

    11.0

    Kirklees

    13.6

    56.8

    5.6

    Leeds

    14.1

    45.6

    15.1

    Wakefield

    16.0

    48.4

    1.8

    Gateshead

    15.8

    1.0

    50.7

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    10.8

    9.4

    62.3

    North Tyneside

    16.1

    48.6

    5.4

    South Tyneside

    8.3

    4.3

    60.9

    Sunderland

    12.6

    53.7

    16.5

    Isles of Scilly

    42.1

    0.0

    26.3

    Bath and north-east Somerset

    25.1

    35.8

    3.8

    City of Bristol

    24.2

    38.4

    0.9

    North Somerset

    19.8

    47.3

    3.1

    South Gloucestershire

    19.3

    45.0

    1.6

    Hartlepool

    14.5

    49.6

    6.8

    Middlesbrough

    12.6

    54.2

    3.5

    Redcar and Cleveland

    13.4

    53.5

    2.2

    Stockton-on-Tees

    16.6

    50.9

    11.6

    City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

    15.9

    51.8

    1.6

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    15.0

    55.2

    1.6

    North-east Lincolnshire

    16.2

    53.7

    1.4

    North Lincolnshire

    17.6

    52.7

    2.4

    North Yorkshire

    27.9

    39.0

    5.8

    York

    16.6

    51.5

    3.2

    Bedfordshire

    26.1

    41.7

    2.5

    Luton

    23.1

    39.6

    3.1

    Buckinghamshire

    24.8

    35.2

    4.9

    Milton Keynes

    21.1

    42.4

    1.3

    Derbyshire

    16.6

    49.1

    7.0

    City of Derby

    28.2

    10.5

    38.2

    Dorset

    16.4

    51.0

    1.0

    Poole

    15.8

    48.1

    2.9

    Bournemouth

    15.7

    49.4

    1.7

    Durham

    23.0

    43.1

    1.3

    Darlington

    31.6

    1.0

    41.4

    East Sussex

    15.7

    47.6

    6.6

    Brighton and Hove

    12.6

    44.5

    10.7

    Hampshire

    16.8

    40.1

    13.7

    Portsmouth

    16.7

    37.6

    18.3

    Southampton

    16.1

    37.3

    9.3

    Leicestershire

    12.4

    51.8

    5.0

    Leicester City

    16.6

    30.9

    28.7

    Rutland

    24.4

    41.1

    3.8

    Staffordshire

    23.7

    41.9

    2.1

    Stoke-on-Trent

    14.7

    47.8

    2.1

    Wiltshire

    22.0

    42.4

    2.9

    Swindon

    16.4

    33.8

    9.7

    Bracknell Forest

    24.5

    41.0

    1.7

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    22.2

    41.0

    6.1

    West Berkshire

    22.2

    37.4

    6.2

    Reading

    25.5

    33.9

    4.8

    Slough

    46.1

    9.6

    12.2

    Wokingham

    40.3

    0.8

    29.7

    Cambridgeshire

    33.2

    1.1

    32.8

    City of Peterborough

    22.5

    38.6

    5.0

    Cheshire

    17.8

    1.3

    49.5

    Halton

    14.2

    52.0

    1.1

    Warrington

    16.5

    46.0

    2.3

    Devon

    18.5

    49.0

    2.8

    City of Plymouth

    14.2

    49.4

    1.4

    Torbay

    30.6

    51.0

    8.2

    Essex

    18.9

    44.6

    3.3

    Southend

    22.0

    42.3

    2.1

    Thurrock

    3.9

    18.4

    8.5

    Herefordshire

    19.5

    48.4

    2.2

    Worcestershire

    17.0

    49.3

    6.3

    Kent

    18.9

    44.7

    2.9

    Medway

    26.8

    4.0

    43.4

    Lancashire

    17.9

    52.9

    3.7

    Blackburn and Darwen

    40.7

    0.5

    43.8

    Blackpool

    16.2

    47.9

    2.6

    Nottinghamshire

    16.5

    51.4

    10.8

    City of Nottingham

    20.0

    42.6

    5.5

    Shropshire

    16.0

    55.5

    1.8

    Telford and Wrekin

    15.5

    53.1

    3.0

    Cornwall

    16.6

    2.9

    52.7

    Cumbria

    18.9

    49.3

    2.5

    Gloucestershire

    19.8

    38.9

    6.3

    67W

    Percentage 1of qualified classroom teachers on point 9 of the main pay scale and the post-threshold scale as at 31 March 2001 2

    Maintained schools sector in England

    Main scale point 9

    Upper pay scale

    Not known 3

    Hertfordshire

    47.0

    13.9

    2.2

    Isle of Wight

    19.0

    45.9

    3.4

    Lincolnshire

    17.0

    41.9

    11.6

    Norfolk

    13.1

    2.4

    48.4

    Northamptonshire

    20.4

    1.8

    44.7

    Northumberland

    44.6

    24.5

    2.0

    Oxfordshire

    17.6

    45.9

    2.3

    Somerset

    17.4

    23.5

    35.6

    Suffolk

    47.0

    20.9

    2.9

    Surrey

    49.5

    10.0

    3.5

    Warwickshire

    18.9

    47.7

    0.7

    West Sussex

    20.5

    44.0

    3.0

    1 Percentage is based on all classroom teachers, including advanced skills teachers.

    2 Provisional.

    3 Not available.

    Note:

    Following changes to the pay system in September 2000, an unusually high number of teachers were shown with a spine point of 'not known'. The majority of these teachers are expected to be on either spine point 9 or the post-threshold scale.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire were entitled to a golden hello in 2001–02. [81182]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information is not collected centrally. The information that is available to my Department on the number of Golden Hello claimants in 2001–02 was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 6 November 2002,Official Report, column 394W.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of teachers (i) passing the threshold for performance-related pay and (ii) rising up the enhanced pay spine having passed the threshold in Chesham and Amersham and Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [81186]

    Mr. Miliband
    The data are collected at LEA rather than constituency level. Nearly 2,000 teachers applied for the Performance Threshold in Buckinghamshire in rounds 1 and 2, with a success rate of 97 per cent. Teachers who were placed on point 1 of the Upper Pay Scale in Round 1 were first eligible to progress to point 2 in September 2002. It is too early to compile details of the numbers who have done so at present.

  TREASURY

    Advertising Campaigns
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on advertising campaigns undertaken since 1997 by(a) the Register of Friendly Societies, (b) the Government Actuary's Department and (c) OGC Buying Solutions; and if he will make a statement. [80651]

    Ruth Kelly
    Neither the Registry of Friendly Societies (since 1997) nor OGC Buying Solutions (since its inception in 2001) have incurred expenditure on advertising campaigns.
    68W
    Annual advertising expenditure for the Government Actuary's Department is set out in the table. Most of this expenditure relates to costs associated with recruitment advertising for trainee actuaries.

    Year

    Expenditure (000)

    1997–98

    33

    1998–99

    53

    1999–2000

    50

    2000–01

    39

    2001–02

    46

    2002–03 to date

    34

    Aviation Gasoline
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to tax aviation gasoline. [80709]

    John Healey
    Aviation gasoline (AVGAS) is taxable at a duty rate of 27.34 pence per litre.

    Births, Deaths and Marriages
    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when birth, marriage and death certificates will begin to be digitised; [81781]

    (2) what plans he has to digitise existing birth, marriage and death certificates. [81780]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Dhanda, dated 19 November 2002:
    As Registrar General and National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about what plans there are to digitise existing birth, marriage and death certificates and when birth, marriage and death certificates will begin to be digitised. (81780, 81781)
    The Government's proposals for modernising civil registration in England and Wales are contained in the White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change" published on 22 January 2002. One of the proposals in the White Paper is that both modern and historic records should be computerized.
    It has been announced that provisions contained in the Regulatory Reform Act 2002 will be used to amend the law to allow for the computerisation of these records. In line with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform Act, a consultation document setting out the proposals in more detail is due to be published in summer 2003. If the proposals are accepted it is expected that the new legislation will be in place by the end of 2004. Once the legislation is in place the process to digitise the birth, marriage and death certificates can begin.

    Child Tax Credit
    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage of families in the Kettering constituency which will benefit from the Child Tax Credit to be introduced next April. [80418]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Nine out of ten families with children will be eligible for the Child Tax Credit which will be introduced in April 2003.

    Estimates of the number of families with children in the Kettering constituency that will benefit from the Child Tax Credit are not available, however an

    69W
    estimated 380,000 families with children in the East Midlands are expected to benefit from the Child Tax Credit.

    Credit Card Fraud
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Home Office regarding methods of addressing credit card fraud; and if his Department is taking steps to reduce the level of crime in this area. [80736]

    Ruth Kelly
    HM Treasury works closely with the Home Office, DTI and other Government Departments on a wide range of issues relating to financial crime. Recent government initiatives to reduce the incidence of credit card fraud include the pilot of a dedicated police unit to combat cheque and plastic crime. The banking industry has also committed to introducing chip cards for authentication of credit and debit transactions by 2005, together with a cardholder verification system using a personal identification number (PIN).

    European Central Bank
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on, and what assessment his Department has made, concerning independence of the European Central bank. [80740]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Chancellor has frequent discussions with his EU counterparts on a range of issues. I refer the hon. Member to chapter 18 of Reforming Britain's economic and financial policy—towards greater economic stability published by HM Treasury this year. A copy can be found in the library of the House.

    Future Builders Fund
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the size, purpose and eligibility parameters of the Future Builders Fund. [80747]

    Mr. Boateng
    The size of the Future Builders Fund, £125 million over three years, was announced by the Chancellor in the Spending Review on 15 July 2002. The purpose of the fund is to assist organisations in the voluntary and community sector in their public service work. The fund is being designed in close collaboration with the voluntary and community sector, in accordance with the provisions of the Compact on relations between Government and the sector. Final decisions about eligibility will be announced in spring 2003.

    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role the Future Builders Fund will have in modernising the community and voluntary sector. [80748]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Future Builders Fund will provide strategic investment to assist Voluntary and Community Sector organisations to modernise in pursuit of delivering high quality public services. The fund is being designed in close collaboration with the sector, who will be leading in developing proposals outlining the modernisation measures that the fund could resource. Final decisions on eligibility criteria will be announced in spring 2003.
    70W
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a)sport, (b) art and (c) recreation will be allowable purposes of the Futures Builders Fund. [80749]

    Mr. Boateng
    The target service areas for the futurebuilders fund are closely linked to Government's key priorities. The fund will be available to enhance voluntary and community sector service delivery in health and social care, crime and social cohesion, education and learning, and in services for children and young people.

    Growth
    Mr. Howard
    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of growth of(a) GDP, (b) household consumption,(c)Government consumption,(d) investment, (e) exports and (f) imports was in the last two quarters. [80417]

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Michael Howard on 19 November 2002
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the level of growth of (a) GDP, household consumption, (c) Government consumption,(d) investment, (e) exports and (f) imports in the last two quarters was. I am replying in his absence. (90417)
    The following table shows percentage growth rates over the previous quarter for the main expenditure components of GDP in the latest two available quarters

    2002 Q1

    2002 Q2

    2002 Q3

    (a) GDP

    0.1

    0.6

    10.7

    (b) Household Expenditure

    0.5

    1.4

    n/a

    (c) Government Consumption

    2.9

    -2.7

    n/a

    (d) Gross Fixed Capital Formation (Investment)

    -1.6

    -0.1

    n/a

    (e) Exports

    -0.1

    3.5

    n/a

    (f) Imports

    1.4

    0.6

    n/a

    1 Only total GDP has been published so far for 2001Q3.

    Source:

    Quarterly National Accounts National Statistics first release.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were in each income tax bracket in each year since 1992. [81953]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer the hon. Member to National Statistics table 2.1 on Inland Revenue's website. http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income tax/it t01l.htm.

    Islamic Mortgages
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove taxation barriers to Islamic mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [80491]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government want to see consumers benefit from a wide choice and innovation in the financial services market. We are therefore keen to examine any perceived restrictions on product development that are brought to our attention.

    We are now examining this issue in the context of the reforms under way as part of the modernisation of stamp duty as announced in the Budget on 17 April by

    71W
    Gordon Brown. The review of stamp duty is an opportunity to iron out anomalies that exist under the current legislation. Our intention is to introduce legislation for the new stamp duty regime in Finance Bill 2003, and to implement the revised scheme late next year.

    Budget Summary Costs
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost to his Department was of sending leaflets and posters summarising the last Budget to(a) general practice surgeries and (b) other healthcare institutions. [80951]

    (2) how many general practice surgeries have been sent leaflets summarising the last Budget. [80950]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Treasury has, for many years, produced and distributed a summary of the Budget. The total cost of producing and distributing all Budget 2002 leaflets was met from within Departmental Expenditure Limits and amounted to approximately £208,000.

    Within the total distribution, around 8,000 GPs' surgeries received summary leaflets. These and other healthcare institutions accounted for around one third of all leaflet recipients.

    Life Expectancy
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the local areas where the expectancy at birth of(a) a man and (b) a woman is less than 70 years; and if he will estimate in each case the number of (i) men and (ii) women who live in each area. [81048]

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

    Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 19 November 2002:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question asking for a list of the local areas where the expectancy at birth of (a) a man and (b) a woman is less than 70 years; and to estimate in each case the number of (i) men and (ii) women who live in each area. I am replying in his absence. (81048)
    The most recent available figures for life expectancy at birth by local authority in England and Wales are for the years 1999 to 2001. These show that Manchester was the only local authority for which male life expectancy at birth was less than 70 years (69.7 years). There were no areas with female life expectancy at birth lower than 70 years.
    The estimated mid-year population of Manchester in 2001, based on the 2001 Census, was:
    (i) 191,778 males
    (ii) 201,130 females.

    Local Government Funding
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representatives his Department has received from Eddisbury constituency residents about local government funding in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the arguments in those representations. [81264]

    Mr. Boateng
    The information requested is not available. Correspondence from members of the public is not recorded by Parliamentary constituency.
    72W

    Mortgage Direct
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the activities of Mortgage Direct. [80784]

    Ruth Kelly
    None. But if he has particular concerns, perhaps my hon. friend could write to me.

    Office for National Statistics
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have been consulted by National Statistics about proposals which impinge on Government policy as defined in the response of the Statistics Commission to the draft National Statistics Code of Practice in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [80414]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 19 November 2002:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many occasions Ministers have been consulted by National Statistics about proposals which impinge on Government policy as defined in the response of the Statistics Commission to the draft National Statistics Code of Practice in each of the last five years. (80414).
    My responsibility for consulting Ministers on "proposals that impinge on government policy" is embodied within the "National Statistics Protocol on Consultation Arrangements between the National Statistician and UK Government Ministers" which came into effect on October 1 Ph this year. Since that date I have not had occasion to consult Ministers under this Protocol.
    As the Protocol indicates, a record of ministerial consultations will be kept and reported annually in the National Statistics Annual Report.

    Public Finances
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the state of the public finances; and if he will make a statement. [81804]

    Mr. Boateng
    Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, an interim forecast update will be provided in the pre-Budget report to be presented to Parliament on 27 November 2002.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report from the National Audit Office on details on the methods used to validate systems in reporting on public service agreements. [80589]

    Mr. Boateng
    The methods used to validate systems are a matter for the National Audit Office.

    Resource Costs
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the resource cost of building(a) homes, (b) schools, (c) hospitals and (d) public utilities for an expansion of the population by one million. [80706]
    73W
    Mr. Boateng
    The cost of additional infrastructure investment needed to support an expansion of the population would depend upon a large number of variables. The Government takes into account all relevant factors in setting spending plans in biennial Spending Reviews.

    Split Capital Investment Trusts
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority regarding the collapse of the split capital investment trusts; and when the FSA will produce the results of its inquiry. [81036]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Treasury is in regular contact with the FSA on a wide range of issues. The FSA issued a policy statement on Split Capital Investment Trusts in May 2002. It will consult on changes to the listing rules in early 2003. It also has on-going investigations into individual cases.

    Stability and Growth
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the future of the Stability and Growth Pact; and if he will make a statement. [80739]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon Member to my answer to him on 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 211W.

    Statistics
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the Office of National Statistics regarding the accuracy of the statistics it provides; and if he is reviewing standards in the office. [80733]

    Ruth Kelly
    Treasury Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the National Statistician and other officials at the Office for National Statistics on a range of statistical issues. Under the Framework for National Statistics, responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of national statistics lies with the National Statistician, who keeps such standards under constant review. The National Statistics Code of Practice, which was officially launched earlier this year, states that the National Statistician will report annually on the quality of official statistics.

    Tax Harmonisation (Private Pensions)
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposals by the European Union to harmonise the tax treatment of private pensions. [80923]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The Government are not aware of any such proposals.

    Treasury Buildings (Air Conditioning)
    Jane Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the climate change impact will be of the use of HFC in the air conditioning system in the Treasury building in Great George Street. [81768]
    74W
    Ruth Kelly
    The Treasury building in Horse Guards Road is largely naturally ventilated, with limited use of air conditioning. With proper maintenance and disposal, the use of HFC will not have any impact on climate change.

    Treasury IT System
    Brian White
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80771]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Department has in place a BS/ISO 17799 compliance programme, and has recently undergone a CRAMM v.4 risk assessment, allowing us to review the effectiveness of our security controls. Several aspects of our office system have also been subjected to independent 'health-checks' in the past 12 months. The controls covering the departmental system's external connections are reviewed every six months by the national security authorities. There have been no incidents of digital attack in either(a) October, or (b) 2002, on the office system, however there was one incidence of digital attack on an external website that was under construction, discovered in June 2002.

  TRANSPORT

    Firefighters
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is to protect transport users during industrial action by firefighters. [81336]

    Mr. Darling
    The Health & Safety Executive has worked with operators to assess the risk to rail services, including London Underground, and "considers the risks arising from a withdrawal of fire brigade cover can be adequately controlled by the industry without major effects to services".

    Cross Rail
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the financing of the East London Crossrail project. [81337]

    Mr Jamieson
    My right hon. Friend and I regularly receive representations on the Crossrail project.

    Piccadilly Station, Manchester
    Mr. Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about train congestion at Piccadilly Station in Manchester. [81338]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Strategic Rail Authority is currently consulting on a capacity utilisation policy, which seeks to make best use of the network as a whole.

    In relation to Manchester, specifically, the SRA's strategic plan identifies proposals from the Greater Manchester capacity study as a scheme for further development.
    75W

    Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the advantages of reopening the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. [81339]

    Mr. Jamieson
    This has been considered by the Strategic Rail Authority. Restoration of the Lewes-Uckfield line is not required to meet the Authority's objectives. No provision was made for it in the Authority's objectives. No provision was made for it in the Authority's strategic plan, published in January 2002.

    Bus Services
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to encourage joint ticketing and timetabling of bus companies. [81340]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government are committed to encouraging joint ticketing schemes between operators that will benefit bus users. The Director General of Fair Trading issued a new guideline in August, setting out what operators need to do to ensure that their ticketing schemes comply with the terms of the block exemption from the Competition Act 1998. The Office of Fair Trading is looking at the competition implications for co-ordinated timetabling of competing services. Officials from my Department are continuing to monitor the situation.

    A6 Bypass
    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the A6 Romwell/Desborough bypass to be completed. [81341]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The contractual completion date for the A6 Rothwell and Desborough Bypass is August 2003.

    Earlier completion would be a matter for the contractor.

    Cycling Helmets
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what he is doing to encourage greater use of cycling helmets. [81342]

    Mr. Jamieson
    In addition to our existing publicity material to promote the wearing of cycles helmets we have supported the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust to develop national guidelines to promote cycle helmet wearing. This has been distributed widely. We are also developing a cycle safety campaign for teenagers for launch in early 2003.

    A34
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the re-surfacing of the A34 between Wendlebury and Peartree in Oxfordshire. [81343]

    Mr. Jamieson
    This section of the A34 is a concrete road. It has been identified as meeting the appropriate selection criteria for possible resurfacing with quieter materials, as announced on 17 October 2001. The 76W
    Highways Agency has carried out surveys on this and other routes opened since 1988 to assess whether actual noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than predicted at the time of their Public Inquiry. The Highways Agency are currently making their assessment. We hope to be able to announce conclusions later this year.

    Liverpool-Euston Line
    Dr. Pugh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received about the upgrading of the Liverpool-Euston line. [81344]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I have received a number of representations about the Strategic Rail Authority's proposed strategy for the west coast main line project, which includes plans for improvements in services between Liverpool and Euston.

    Train Performance
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had since 1 January with train operating companies about train performance. [81345]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I, and other departmental Ministers, meet with train operating companies on a regular basis, as part of wider industry meetings and specifically to discuss their work.

    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had since he took office with train operating companies about train performance. [81444]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I, and other departmental Ministers, meet with train operating companies on a regular basis, as part of wider industry meetings and specifically to discuss their work.

    New Airport (Rugby)
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of Transport what discussions he has had with the Environment Agency on consequences involving flooding if a new airport were to be built on the proposed site near Rugby. [81347]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided comments on the draft consultation document for the Midlands. The Environmental Agency has engaged in the consultation process. If the Midlands new site option was taken forward detailed assessment of environmental impacts, including flood risk, would be required as part of the planning process.

    Train Operating Companies
    Mrs. Anne Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about poor service from the train operating companies. [81348]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Ministers and officials met with the SRA on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of topics including train performance.
    77W

    Rail Subsidies
    Alan Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of public subsidy to Railtrack and other train operators in the period since rail privatisation. [81349]

    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the total level of public subsidy to rail services in the UK in the last financial year. [81346]

    Mr. Jamieson
    For five years after its privatisation in 1996, Railtrack received no public subsidy direct from the Government. However, the company's profitability was contingent on subsidy, because some 85 per cent. of its income came in access charges paid to it by train operating companies (TOCS), most of which did receive subsidy. Since 1 October 2001, Railtrack has received network grant direct from the Government to help fund its maintenance and renewals investment.

    Details of annual levels of public subsidy to the rail industry in Great Britain are set out in Table 5.1 of "National Rail Trends", copies of which are in the Library. In 2001–02, total subsidy amounted to £1,826 million. The main elements of that were £731 million paid to TOCs, £306 million paid to passenger transport executives, £499 million paid to Railtrack and £185 million paid to London & Continental Railways.

    Timetables and Ticketing
    Helen Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State what progress he is making on integrating timetables and ticketing of public transport. [81350]

    Mr. Jamieson
    We are making good progress in this area. My Department assisted with the establishment of traveline and continues to provide support for this service. Traveline provides integrated, multi-modal public transport route and timetable information through a single national telephone number.

    Transport Direct will build on the success of traveline. It will provide route, timetable and fare information for all modes of public and private transport and provide for the purchase of tickets. Transport Direct will initially be provided through an internet portal; the first version will be up and running by the end of 2003 as stated in our objectives in the 10-year plan.

    We have also been working with other organisations to encourage integrated ticketing. One of these products is the PlusBus scheme which allows integration of zonal bus tickets on to national rail tickets. Sheffield is among the initial 35 stations where PlusBus will be available.

    Rail Services (North-West)
    Andy Burnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the quality and coverage of rail services in the North West. [81351]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Strategic Rail Authority reports on the quality and coverage of rail services in its annual report, "On Track" and "National Rail Trends".

    M10
    Mr. McWalter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the M10 to provide a full motorway link to the A1(M). [81352]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The M10 motorway falls within the study area of the London to South Midlands Multi-Modal Study. This study is currently under way and is looking at long-term solutions to meet the passenger and freight transport needs within the area, including the existing difficulty of east-west travel. It is expected the study will report to regional planning bodies at the turn of this year. I would not want to prejudge the study recommendations at this stage.

    10-year Plan
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups about the 10-year Plan. [81353]

    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups about the 10-year Plan. [81355]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Ministers in this Department have regular meetings with a wide range of interest groups, many of whom represent passengers.

    Traffic Reduction
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for traffic reduction. [81354]

    Mr. Jamieson
    A core aim of the Government's 10-year Plan for transport is to tackle the adverse effects of traffic, in particular congestion and pollution. There is no specific objective for reducing traffic, although we believe that, by 2010, the plan will have led to lower traffic growth than would otherwise have been the case.

    Stagecoach
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the standard of bus services provided by Stagecoach. [81356]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Local authorities have the primary role in assessing whether bus service needs in their area are being met adequately by current provision. I understand there were some problems with Stagecoach services in the east Derbyshire area, but that these have now improved considerably.

    Airport Expansion
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning airport expansion in the south-east. [81357]

    Mr. Jamieson
    We have received and continue to receive a huge number of responses and inquiries concerning the airports consultation. Ministers and officials have met a wide range of organisations including planning bodies, environmental groups and the aviation industry. A number of public exhibitions on the options have also been held.

    Air Shows
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many accidents there have been at air shows in each of the last 10 years; and how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries resulted from these; [80790]

    (2) how many public air shows have been held in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these involved (a) vintage aircraft (b) former military planes. [80789]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The following table provides details of civilian air displays performed for the public since 1992. There were no injuries to members of th public over this period. All of the displays listed involved both vintage and ex-military aircraft.

    Year

    Air displays

    Accidents

    Fatalities to crew

    Serious injuries

    Minor injuries

    1992

    462

    1

    1

    0

    0

    1993

    438

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1994

    438

    1

    0

    0

    1

    1995

    370

    2

    1

    0

    0

    1996

    256

    4

    4

    0

    0

    1997

    338

    2

    0

    0

    0

    1998

    311

    2

    1

    0

    0

    1999

    294

    1

    0

    0

    0

    2000

    245

    1

    1

    0

    0

    2001

    165

    2

    3

    0

    0

    2002

    196

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Total

    16

    11

    0

    2

    Angina
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the review team of the DVLA will report on the outcome of its inquiry into the confusion caused by the wording of Question 2 on the H1 medical questionnaire about angina; and if he will make a statement. [80761]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The agency has completed its review of the wording of the angina question. It has been decided to make a change to the wording of the question and this will be introduced as soon as possible. In the meantime, applicants who declare that they suffer from angina provoked by driving are being contacted to confirm that they have answered the question appropriately before any licensing decision is taken.

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81858]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Within the proposed central London charging zone there are:(a) 19 car parking spaces available to employees of the Department, and
    (b) 17 car parking spaces available to visitors to the Department.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81838]
    80W
    Mr. Jamieson
    It is general departmental travel planning policy that staff should not use cars to commute to and from work. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost is to his Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81877]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Any additional costs to my Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

    Tonnage Tax
    Mr. Ivan Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the UK-based shipping companies which have increased the number of UK ratings in their employment since the introduction of the tonnage tax. [80893]

    Mr. Jamieson
    This information is commercially confidential and is exempt from disclosure under Section 13 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Arson (Buckinghamshire)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many incidents of arson there were in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since January 1997. [81178]

    Mr. Leslie
    In 2000, the Fire Service in Buckinghamshire attended 1,263 fires where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected (these include fires which were recorded by the brigade as `doubtful'. This compares to 1,138 such fires in 1999, 967 in 1998 and 926 in 1997. Incident data are not available below brigade area level. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

    Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) central and (b) departmental administrative expenditure went on organising bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless households in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by local authority. [80544]

    Mrs. Roche
    Comprehensive information on local authorities' expenditure in relation to expenditure on bed and breakfast accommodation, including central and departmental allocations of associated administrative and welfare costs, is published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in "Homelessness Statistics—Actuals". Copies of the latest report, for 2000–01, and those for earlier years are available in the House Library.

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed central London road user charging zone. [81859]

    Mr. Leslie
    Within the proposed central London charging zone there are:(a) 41 car parking spaces available to employees of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and
    (b) 14 car parking spaces available to visitors to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81839]

    Mr. Leslie
    It is general departmental travel planning policy that staff should not use cars to commute to and from work. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

    Essex and Suffolk Haven Gateway Initiative
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give recognition to the Essex and Suffolk Haven Gateway initiative; and what financial and other support the Government will provide. [80755]

    Mr. Raynsford
    As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on 17 July 2002,Official Report, column 343W, I recognise that the Haven Gateway Partnership has an important role. The East of England Development Agency has allocated £125,000 to support the partnership this year.

    Fire Service
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost to the Government has been of(a) maintained and (b) storage of Bedford self-propelled pumps since the Auxiliary Fire Service was disbanded; and if he will make a statement. [81699]

    Mr. Leslie
    The vehicles are held at Marchington and the costs of the site are shown in the following table:

    Costs of Marchington since 1991

    Year

    Rent

    Storage costs

    Maintained costs

    Income1

    Total

    Included

    1991–922

    326,693

    in rent

    502,441

    —

    829,134

    1992–93

    1,476,890

    301,045

    708,200

    —

    2,486,135

    1993–94

    1,183,128

    237,870

    832,944

    —

    2,253,942

    1994–95

    1,459,751

    204,928

    685,438

    —

    2,350,117

    1995–96

    1,191,498

    195,845

    635,924

    —

    2,023,267

    1996–97

    1,308,115

    188,128

    558,411

    —

    2,054,654

    1997–98

    1,388,300

    144,076

    512,549

    —

    2,044,925

    1998–99

    1,410,773

    156,788

    562,350

    —

    2,129,911

    1999–2000

    1,460,324

    131,272

    692,557

    —

    2,284,153

    2000–01

    1,490,469

    178,784

    881,139

    —

    2,550,392

    2001–02

    1,339,244

    243,765

    1,144,343

    -800,000

    1,927,352

    1In July 2001 management of the EFS stockpile reverted to Departmental management and income is now shown separately.

    2 Part Year

    82W
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) retained firemen are on the strength of each fire brigade. [82013]

    Mr. Leslie
    The strength of firefighters in each fire authority area in England and Wales at 31 March 2002 is shown in the table:

    Strength of wholetimeland retained2 fire authority staff in England and Wales at 31 March 2002 3

    Wholetime

    Retained

    Avon

    651

    159

    Bedfordshire and Luton

    324

    118

    Buckinghamshire

    304

    143

    Cambridgeshire

    274

    304

    Cheshire

    626

    146

    Cleveland

    610

    66

    Cornwall

    183

    407

    County Durham and Darlington

    412

    151

    Cumbria

    274

    372

    Derbyshire

    482

    226

    Devon

    538

    651

    Dorset

    298

    289

    East Sussex

    423

    197

    Essex

    948

    382

    Gloucestershire

    226

    261

    Greater Manchester

    2,148

    26

    Hampshire

    770

    567

    Hereford and Worcester

    352

    289

    Hertfordshire

    570

    208

    Humberside

    720

    270

    Isle of Wight

    59

    148

    Isles of Scilly

    10

    33

    Kent

    951

    467

    Lancashire

    1,002

    268

    Leicestershire

    476

    139

    Lincolnshire

    192

    420

    London

    5,913

    0

    Merseyside

    1,317

    0

    Mid and West Wales

    499

    662

    Norfolk

    307

    430

    North Wales

    289

    473

    North Yorkshire

    363

    321

    Northamptonshire

    292

    231

    Northumberland

    208

    162

    Nottinghamshire

    576

    205

    Oxfordshire

    239

    232

    Royal Berkshire

    413

    136

    Shropshire

    206

    252

    Somerset

    181

    345

    South Wales

    957

    363

    South Yorkshire

    923

    34

    Staffordshire

    471

    308

    Suffolk

    252

    348

    Surrey

    686

    103

    Tyne and Wear

    1,009

    18

    Warwickshire

    282

    144

    West Midlands

    2,028

    7

    West Sussex

    393

    259

    West Yorkshire

    1,660

    160

    Wiltshire

    221

    280

    1 In full-time equivalents

    2 In 24 hour units of cover

    3 Provisional

    Note:

    Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he collects on the relative manpower to risk ratios of different fire brigades; and what guidelines he offers to brigades on determining manpower levels. [82014]
    83W
    Mr. Leslie
    HM Fire Service Inspectorate collects information for each fire authority on staffing levels and on hectarage of each category of fire risk. However, it is not possible to make a direct correlation between the two as fire cover is provided on a strategic basis.

    Guidance which fire authorities use when considering staffing levels is contained in the "Report of the Joint Committee on Standards of Fire Cover", circulated under cover of Fire Service Circular 4/1985, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House. This report recommends national standards for attendance times, the number of fire appliances and crewing levels. Fire

    Incidents attended by brigade area, 2000 1

    Total incidents

    Fires All fires

    Primary fires2

    Secondary fires

    Chimney fires

    False alarms

    Special Services3

    United Kingdom

    1,134,388

    476,347

    219,535

    241,357

    15,455

    460,466

    197,575

    England and Wales

    981,573

    399,437

    192,239

    197,253

    9,945

    396,913

    185,223

    England

    920,968

    368,537

    179,842

    179,753

    8,942

    377,950

    174,481

    England—non-Met

    494,149

    196,655

    101,497

    86,934

    8,224

    204,765

    92,729

    Avon

    18,410

    7,330

    4,372

    2,837

    121

    8,070

    3,010

    Bedfordshire

    8,180

    3,617

    2,070

    1,485

    62

    3,239

    1,324

    Berkshire

    13,742

    4,755

    2,589

    2,054

    112

    6,796

    2,191

    Buckinghamshire

    10,466

    4,616

    2,605

    1,888

    123

    4,325

    1,525

    Cambridgeshire

    12,707

    4,156

    2,374

    1,678

    104

    6,412

    2,139

    Cheshire

    14,521

    6,975

    3,020

    3,778

    177

    5,374

    2,172

    Cleveland

    16,023

    8,256

    3,199

    5,028

    29

    5,759

    2,008

    Cornwall

    6,332

    2,656

    1,405

    848

    403

    2,197

    1,479

    Cumbria

    7,778

    3,524

    1,724

    1,538

    262

    3,349

    905

    Derbyshire

    14,221

    5,038

    2,573

    2,244

    221

    6,488

    2,695

    Devon

    17,278

    6,089

    3,291

    2,314

    484

    7,102

    4,087

    Dorset

    10,219

    3,723

    1,838

    1,646

    239

    4,547

    1,949

    Durham

    11,434

    5,978

    2,411

    3,317

    250

    3,916

    1,540

    East Sussex

    14,290

    4,845

    3,013

    1,603

    229

    5,720

    3,725

    Essex

    25,481

    9,405

    4,776

    4,474

    155

    10,015

    6,061

    Gloucestershire

    7,300

    2,853

    1,664

    929

    260

    2,654

    1,793

    Hampshire

    22,920

    9,116

    4,175

    4,602

    339

    9,266

    4,538

    Hereford and Worcs

    9,174

    3,725

    1,951

    1,514

    260

    3,469

    1,980

    Hertfordshire

    13,581

    5,296

    3,081

    2,127

    88

    6,234

    2,051

    Humberside

    16,895

    8,369

    3,360

    4,819

    190

    5,658

    2,868

    Isle of Wight

    1,966

    589

    372

    172

    45

    753

    624

    Kent

    25,817

    10,239

    5,581

    4,326

    332

    10,519

    5,059

    Lancashire

    26,648

    12,251

    5,633

    6,451

    167

    10,728

    3,669

    Leicestershire

    13,806

    5,386

    2,900

    2,346

    140

    5,771

    2,649

    Lincolnshire

    7,252

    3,134

    1,824

    1,105

    205

    2,334

    1,784

    Norfolk

    9,403

    3,889

    2,267

    1,312

    310

    4,043

    1,471

    North Yorkshire

    10,784

    3,575

    2,082

    1,153

    340

    4,131

    3,078

    Northamptonshire

    10,047

    4,681

    2,586

    1,943

    152

    3,833

    1,533

    Northumberland

    5,174

    2,655

    1,109

    1,339

    207

    1,876

    643

    Nottinghamshire

    17,589

    8,067

    4,272

    3,620

    175

    6,714

    2,808

    Oxfordshire

    10,264

    3,247

    2,015

    999

    233

    5,585

    1,432

    Shropshire

    6,815

    2,960

    1,498

    1,209

    253

    2,294

    1,561

    Somerset

    7,754

    2,740

    1,614

    745

    381

    3,306

    1,708

    Staffordshire

    14,438

    6,745

    3,268

    3,233

    244

    5,378

    2,315

    Suffolk

    7,994

    2,813

    1,630

    979

    204

    3,590

    1,591

    Surrey

    15,569

    4,099

    2,348

    1,623

    128

    8,282

    3,188

    Warwickshire

    7,943

    3,046

    1,498

    1,443

    105

    3,566

    1,331

    West Sussex

    15,214

    3,689

    2,033

    1,428

    228

    7,260

    4,265

    Wiltshire

    8,688

    2,516

    1,470

    780

    266

    4,203

    1,969

    Isles of Scilly

    32

    12

    6

    5

    1

    9

    11

    England(Met

    426,819

    171,882

    78,345

    92,819

    718

    173,185

    81,752

    Greater Manchester

    59,675

    29,201

    14,953

    14,189

    59

    24,217

    6,257

    Merseyside

    37,808

    21,278

    8,406

    12,810

    62

    12,625

    3,905

    South Yorkshire

    24,293

    12,135

    5,116

    6,844

    175

    9,168

    2,990

    Tyne and Wear

    26,660

    14,858

    5,996

    8,821

    41

    9,469

    2,333

    West Midlands

    59,807

    25,397

    12,462

    12,855

    80

    24,766

    9,644

    West Yorkshire

    42,128

    20,791

    9,668

    10,908

    215

    17,368

    3,969

    Greater London

    176,448

    48,222

    21,744

    26,392

    86

    75,572

    52,654

    Wales

    60,605

    30,900

    12,397

    17,500

    1,003

    18,963

    10,742

    North Wales

    13,706

    5,535

    2,429

    2,642

    464

    5,153

    3,018

    Mid and West Wales

    16,991

    8,623

    3,931

    4,309

    383

    4,917

    3,451

    84W
    authorities use a formula to determine what staffing levels they require to meet these standards, taking account of local circumstances. HM Inspectorate examines these levels as part of its regular inspection of brigades.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many emergency call-outs were received by each fire brigade in the last year for which information is available. [82015]

    Mr. Leslie
    The number of emergency call-outs attended by UK local authority fire brigades for the last year for which data are available is recorded in the table.
    85W

    Incidents attended by brigade area, 20001

    Total incidents

    Fires All fires

    Primary fires2

    Secondary fires

    Chimney fires

    False alarms

    Special Services3

    South Wales

    29,908

    16,742

    6,037

    10,549

    156

    8,893

    4,273

    Northern Ireland

    34,488

    21,156

    7,093

    11,672

    2,391

    11,774

    1,558

    Scotland4

    118,327

    55,754

    20,203

    32,432

    3,119

    51,779

    10,794

    Strathclyde

    60,265

    29,641

    10,235

    18,920

    486

    25,881

    4,743

    Highland and Islands

    4,980

    2,319

    644

    657

    1,018

    2,127

    534

    Grampian

    8,169

    3,737

    1,669

    1,537

    531

    3,283

    1,149

    Tayside

    9,169

    4,522

    1,645

    2,644

    233

    3,828

    819

    Lothian and Borders

    21,413

    9,154

    3,638

    5,183

    333

    10,193

    2,066

    Fife

    6,923

    3,095

    1,119

    1,829

    147

    3,177

    651

    Central

    5,204

    2,294

    834

    1,374

    86

    2,552

    358

    Dumfries and Galloway

    2,204

    992

    419

    288

    285

    738

    474

    1 2000 fire incident figures are provisional

    2 Including additional "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents

    3 Special service incidents relate to financial year 2000–01

    4 Scottish special service data supplied by the Scottish Executive

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of(a) the population and (b) the land area of each fire brigade are covered by (i) retained and (ii) full-time firemen. [82016]

    Mr. Leslie
    Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority. Information on the land area or population served by individual fire stations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Fire stations may be staffed by whole-time, retained firefighters or combination of the two. Fire cover is provided on a strategic basis because it is recognised that the appliances at any individual fire station are not the only resources available to that locality.

    Firefighters (Buckinghamshire)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) full-time equivalent firefighters there were in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years. [81170]

    Mr. Leslie
    Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority, in this case the Buckinghamsire, and Milton Keynes Fire Authority. The readily available information is as follows.

    Amersham and Chestham

    Firefighter posts

    Firefighter posts

    Wholetime

    Retained

    Wholetime

    Retained

    31 December 1997

    17

    12

    0

    12

    31 March 1999

    14

    12

    3

    12

    31 March 2000

    14

    12

    0

    12

    31 March 2001

    14

    12

    0

    12

    31 March 2002

    14

    12

    0

    12

    Buckinghamshire

    Firefighter strength

    Wholetime1

    Retained2

    31 December 1997

    300

    156

    31 March 1999

    305

    152

    31 March 2000

    307

    151

    31 March 2001

    292

    152

    31 March 2002

    304

    143

    1 In full-time equivalents

    2 In units of 24 hour cover

    Local Authority Performance Assessments
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether democratically elected members of an authority have a right to see the inspection team's report following a comprehensive performance assessment of a local authority while awaiting the identification of the final assessment category. [80591]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Audit Commission had been charged with developing and implementing the methodology for the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, including a Corporate Assessment. Corporate Assessment tests how the council has established its aims and priorities and how they are succeeding in delivering them.

    Once completed, the Corporate Assessment report will be a public document. Prior to publication it is shared with each council, as a confidential draft, in order to rectify any inaccuracies, to permit the authority to provide further evidence or to seek clarification on inspection findings before the report is finalised. All Corporate Assessment reports are then subject to an Audit Commission quality assurance process before they are completed and published. In respecting the confidential nature of the draft, it is a matter for each authority how widely it is shared with officers and elected members.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what level of revenue support grant has been received by the Isle of Wight Council in each of the last five years at 2002 prices(a) in total and (b) per head of population; and what the anticipated figures would be for 2003–04 under each of his consultative options for reform of the local government finance formula using Treasury inflation assumptions. [80986]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The tables show the amounts of Revenue Support Grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates, and the total of these two items, for the Isle of Wight in £ millions and in 3s per head for the period 1998–99 to 2002–03.
    87W
    The figures are in real terms, based on the GDP deflator, with 2002–03 as the base year. The figures are based on the amount of grant actually received by the Isle of Wight for the year concerned, and so do not take into account any changes in function or responsibility.

    Figures for 2003–04 under each of the consultative options could only be provided at disproportionate cost. In all events this would not give an accurate projection for 2003–4 as the consultative options were illustrated by reference to 2002–3 and did not incorporate data changes for 2003–4 which were not then Available.

    Table 1: Grant in real terms in £million.

    RSG

    NNDR

    RSF plus NNDR

    1998–99

    49.110

    32.414

    81.253

    1999–2000

    48.669

    34.399

    83.068

    2000–01

    48.753

    38.293

    87.046

    2001–02

    53.653

    36.970

    90.623

    2002–03

    48.409

    39.822

    88.231

    Table 2: Grant per head in real terms in £

    RSG

    NNDR

    RSG plus NNDR

    1998–99

    391

    258

    650

    1999–2000

    387

    273

    660

    2000–01

    384

    302

    685

    2001–02

    418

    288

    707

    2002–03

    374

    308

    682

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [81169]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We will announce the new system for distributing formula grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government have allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceiling scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services delivered by(a) Chiltern District Council and (b) Buckinghamshire County Council. [81173]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We will announce the new system for distributing formula grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government has allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that we 88W
    will use grant "floors" to ensure that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of spending by(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Chiltern district council (i) has been financed by council tax payers in each year since 1 January 1996 and (ii) is to be financed by council tax payers in 2002–03. [81179]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The proportions of revenue expenditure financed from the council tax for Buckinghamshire county council and Chiltern district council in the financial years 1995–96 to 2002–03 are set out in the following table:

    Income from council tax as a percentage of spending

    Year

    Buckinghamshire county council 1

    Chiltern district council

    1995–96

    27

    51

    1996–97

    28

    57

    1997–98

    31

    67

    1998–99

    34

    65

    1999–2000

    34

    60

    2001–01

    35

    62

    2001–022

    34

    61

    2002–032

    36

    62

    1 For 1997–98 onwards this excludes the area of Milton Keynes borough council, which became unitary from 1 April 1997.

    2 2001–02 and 2002–03 are budgeted figures; 1995–96 to 2001–01 are outturn figures.

    Source:

    1995–96 to 2000–01 Revenue Summary Returns.

    2001–02 and 2002–03 Budget Estimate Returns.

    Parish Clerks
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many parish clerks are employed in England. [80628]

    Mr. Leslie
    The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has issued on the training of parish clerks. [80629]

    Mr. Leslie
    We have not issued any guidance on the training of parish clerks, although the National Training Strategy has introduced a training package for parish clerks, prepared by the Countryside Agency and NALC. The Government strongly support this initiative and are contributing £2 million over three years.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the remuneration of parish clerks. [80630]

    Mr. Leslie
    We have not made any assessment of the remuneration of parish clerks.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of change in nature of the work of parish clerks. [80631]

    Mr. Leslie
    We recognise the implications that the new measures to strengthen the parish tier of local
    89W
    government have for parish clerks. The new Training Strategy which has been prepared by the Countryside Agency and NALC, to which the Government is contributing £2 million over three years, reflects the current role of clerks.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the parish clerk workforce in terms of(a) age, (b) gender and (c) ethnicity. [80635]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made any assessment of the parish clerk workforce recently. However, research undertaken in 1991 for the then Department of Environment sampled 1,000 parish councils in England. The research found that 59 per cent. of all clerks were female and employed part-time. However, this proportion decreases with the increase in the size of the council. The research found that in councils for parishes with a population of over 10,000 only 25 per cent. were female.

    Income from parking for the London authorities

    £000

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    City of London

    10,948

    11,082

    12,702

    12,815

    12,213

    Inner London boroughs

    Camden

    16,975

    18,647

    21,286

    24,535

    25,742

    Greenwich

    3,029

    4,706

    5,570

    4,797

    5,066

    Hackney

    3,643

    4,790

    3,473

    4,617

    4,946

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    9,313

    11,043

    13,194

    14,633

    21,815

    Islington

    4,170

    4,584

    5,793

    5,812

    7,234

    Kensington and Chelsea

    22,756

    24,820

    25,946

    30,434

    30,836

    Lambeth

    2,676

    2,983

    5,476

    10,663

    9,817

    Lewisham

    1,145

    1,149

    1,338

    1,616

    2,563

    Southwark

    2,801

    3,815

    4,749

    6,209

    6,303

    Tower Hamlets

    3,708

    6,455

    7,469

    11,847

    9,825

    Wandsworth

    4,900

    5,452

    6,160

    8,731

    11,938

    Westminster

    91,572

    101,919

    76,794

    88,020

    89,397

    Total inner London boroughs

    166,688

    190,363

    177,248

    211,914

    225,482

    Outer London boroughs

    Barking and Degenham

    863

    932

    935

    1,010

    990

    Barnet

    2,528

    2,421

    3,060

    3,893

    3,815

    Bexley

    2,293

    2,541

    2,618

    2,721

    2,874

    Brent

    2,515

    3,658

    4,052

    5,269

    5,859

    Bromley

    4,554

    5,026

    5,404

    5,945

    6,074

    Croydon

    9,053

    9,883

    10,148

    13,297

    14,115

    Ealing

    2,552

    3,042

    3,120

    4,268

    5,619

    Enfield

    3,468

    3,606

    3,777

    3,682

    4,666

    Haringey

    2,039

    2,679

    4,129

    4,228

    5,438

    Harrow

    2,481

    3,104

    3,408

    4,363

    5,051

    Havering

    3,207

    3,535

    3,478

    3,729

    3,687

    Hillingdon

    2,530

    2,676

    3,192

    3,504

    4,442

    Hounslow

    2,621

    2,879

    3,339

    3,407

    4,676

    Kingston upon Thames

    4,450

    4,398

    4,775

    5,295

    6,193

    Merton

    1,900

    2,258

    2,365

    2,714

    3,104

    Newham

    1,934

    2,168

    2,542

    3,093

    3,930

    Redbridge

    2,147

    1,852

    2,312

    2,857

    3,346

    Richmond upon Thames

    5,039

    5,963

    5,561

    6,330

    7,076

    Sutton

    2,877

    3,102

    3,484

    3,746

    3,865

    Waltham Forest

    2,573

    2,908

    3,173

    3,677

    3,975

    Total outer London boroughs

    61,624

    68,631

    74,872

    87,028

    98,795

    Total London

    239,260

    270,076

    264,822

    311,757

    336,490

    Source:

    Revenue Summary Returns.
    90W
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the workload of parish clerks. [80636]

    Mr. Leslie
    We have not made any assessment of the current workload of parish clerks generally, although in our consultation document "Quality Town and Parish Councils", published on 7 November 2001, we proposed a basis for assessing their competence.

    Parking Fines
    Clive Efford
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the income was for each local authority in London in each of the last five years from(a) parking meters, (b) car park charges, and (c) parking enforcement notices. [81008]

    Mr. Leslie
    It is not possible to separately identify the income from parking meters, car park charges and parking enforcement notices. The total income reported by local authorities in the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 is presented in the table.
    91W

    Public Service Agreements (Chesham and Amersham)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many public service agreements have been entered into with local authorities covering the Chesham and Amersham constituency; and if he will make a statement. [81176]
    92W
    Mr. Leslie
    The Government have entered into one local public service agreement covering the Chesham and Amersham constituency. This agreement is with Buckinghamshire county council, with the four district councils in Buckinghamshire being joint signatories to the agreement. The text of this agreement can be found at http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/lpsa/2001/full.htm.
    93W

  CABINET OFFICE

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81864]

    Mr. Alexander
    There are 46 allocated parking spaces available for use by employees of the Cabinet Office.

    In addition there are currently 18 parking spaces which are for the use of visitors to the Department, for the parking of ministerial cars and for operational purposes.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the estimated cost is to his Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81883]

    Mr. Alexander
    Any additional costs to my Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81844]

    Mr. Alexander
    All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own every day home to office travel costs. The introduction of a Central London Road User charge will not affect this basic condition of service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Lord Chancellor (Pension Schemes)
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Prime Minister whether the Lord Chancellor is entitled to be a member of(a) the Judicial Pensions Scheme and (b) the Ministerial Pensions Scheme; and if he will make a statement as to how the two schemes inter-relate in respect of the Lord Chancellor. [81896]

    The Prime Minister
    The Judicial Pensions Act 1981 provides lump sum benefits for the Lord Chancellor on leaving office or in the event of the Lord Chancellor's death in service, and also provides for pensions for his dependants.

    There is no Ministerial Pension Scheme. The Parliamentary Pension Scheme provides pension benefits to Members of Parliament, Ministers and Officeholders. The Lord Chancellor is not entitled to membership of this scheme.

    Provision for the Lord Chancellor's pension is made in the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 and the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 as amended.

    Official Definitions
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government has a uniform definition of rural and urban. [81894]

    The Prime Minister
    There is no unique approach to defining urban or rural areas. Indeed many areas exhibit characteristics of both.

    However, definitions are needed to target programmes for urban and rural areas and for statistical purposes. In these cases, urban is defined as 'built-up settlements with a minimum population of 1,000 and a minimum land area of 20 hectares'. And the Countryside Agency has an existing methodology for defining rural areas; work is currently under way across Departments to refine that methodology.

  SCOTLAND

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and (b) visitors to her Department within the proposed entral London road user charging zone. [81865]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My department has no employee or visitors car parking spaces within the proposed central London charging zone. Scotland Office ministerial drivers have access to Whitehall parking permits as do any employees requiring these for essential business use.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81845]

    Mrs. Liddell
    All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own everyday home to office travel costs. The introduction of a central London road user charge will not affect this basic condition of service.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated cost is to her Department of the central London road user charging scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81884]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My Department has made no estimate of any additional costs resulting from the congestion charging scheme in central London since any that do arise will, necessarily, be very limited.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and visitors to her Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81852]
    95W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Lord Chancellor's Department has(a) a total of 48 bays available to its employees, and (b) one space permanently allocated to visitors within the Central London Road User Charging Zone.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the estimated cost is to her Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81870]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Lord Chancellor's Department estimates, based on average usage of departmental pool cars, that the figures for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2002 will be £620 and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 would be £4,800.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81892]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently formulating a policy on congestion charging.

  TREASURY

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees; [81891]

    (2)what the estimated cost is to his Department of the central London road user charging scheme for (a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004; [81871]

    (3) how many car parking spaces are available to (a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed central London road user charging zone. [81851]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Treasury has 46 car parking spaces, which are available for employees and visitors according to need. It reimburses staff for reasonable expenses legitimately incurred on official business. The scheme is not expected to make any detectable difference to the total amount paid. No numerical estimate of the cost has been made.

    Immigration
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he estimates the inflow of immigrants to this country will have on the levels of pay of(a) unskilled and (b) semi-skilled workers. [80705]

    Ruth Kelly
    To the extent that immigration were to add proportionately less to some skill groups than others, it would tend to raise their relative wage rates. If 96W
    immigration did not change the skill composition of the labour force or productivity, it should have no lasting effect on either absolute or relative rates of pay.

    Nevertheless research in the UK suggests that, if anything, migrants have had a positive impact on the wage levels of native workers among both groups. Migrants have contributed to economic growth, productivity and the public finances. Work-related immigration schemes in the UK are targeted to meet the needs of sectors where there are skills and labour shortages (for example the seasonal agricultural workers scheme), and are developed in conjunction with both sides of industry.

  WALES

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81862]

    Peter Hain
    Within the proposed central London charging zone my Department has a total of six parking spaces which are available to employees, visitors and official cars.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81842]

    Peter Hain
    All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own every day home to office travel costs. The introduction of a Central London Road User charge will not affect this basic condition of service. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed for any charge they incur.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the estimated cost is to his Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81881]

    Peter Hain
    Any additional costs to my Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  HEALTH

    Abortion
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of NHS funded abortions occurred within(a) 9 weeks, (b) 9–12 weeks and (c) 13–19 weeks gestation of pregnancy in each of the last five years, broken down by authority of residence in England and Wales; [80399]
    97W
    (2) what the (a) mean and (b) modal length of time between referral and an abortion was when a patient had to wait; in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by health authority boundaries in England and Wales. [80400]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Information on how long a patient had to wait between referral and an abortion is not collected centrally. As part of the sexual health and HIV strategy implementation action plan, the Department will be developing an abortion waiting time performance indicator and undertaking an audit of abortion waiting times and commissioning policies. From 2003, primary care trusts (PCTs) will work towards the national standard that women who meet the legal requirements should have access to an abortion within three weeks of the first appointment with referring doctor. £1 million is being allocated to a number of PCTs this financial year to help improve access to abortion services and reduce waiting times.

    Adoption (Homosexual Couples)
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the adoption of children by homosexual couples; what assessment he has made of research into whether it provides a stable foundation for the raising of children; and what assessment he has made of possible gender confusion in children that are adopted by homosexual couples. [81067]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Adoption and Children Act 2002, which amends the Adoption Act 1976, provides that those who will be eligible to apply to adopt in the future are married couples, single people and two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship.

    Under the existing Adoption Act 1976, single people adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, but only married couples may adopt jointly. It is open for one umarried partner to adopt a child and for the other to obtain parental responsibility by applying for a residence order in respect of the child. This denies the child the permanence and security of having two parents.

    Enabling unmarried couples to apply to adopt jointly will widen the pool of potential adoptive parents, thereby ensuring that more vulnerable children will have the chance of the family life that adoption can bring. It will also allow the child to have a legal relationship with both parents, rather than just one, and therefore will increase the stability and security for the child.

    In order to be approved as adoptive parents, any couple is required to undergo a stringent assessment process carried out by an adoption agency over a period of several months. The assessment process will include rigorous scrutiny of the stability of the relationship and their suitability to bring up children in that they can provide a loving family environment for a child. Ultimately the court will decide whether or not to make the adoption order.
    98W
    Recognising the strongly held views for and against same-sex parenting, the Government has sought to draw conclusions from the various studies, which have been conducted and published in academic journals.

    No reliable research to date has identified significant differences between lesbian and gay parents and their heterosexual counterparts, or between the children raised by those groups.

    A number of studies have examined gender-role behaviour among children of lesbian mothers. The studies did not find any differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests or occupational choices relevant to sex-role conventions. Details of the studies cited may be found in the letter from my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) to Lord Brennan of 20 June 2002, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

    The Government's objective through changing the law to allow unmarried couples to adopt jointly is to increase the number of children who have the opportunity, through adoption, to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family.

    Child Performances
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances employers are required to obtain a licence to allow children to take part in a performance; and what the maximum length of time is that a child is allowed to take part in(a) rehearsals and (b) performances (i) per day and (ii) per year, where a licence is required for the child's performance; and what is the minimum number of hours education a child must undergo on school days when taking part in a performance. [81753]

    Jacqui Smith
    The circumstances governing the issue of child performance licences are contained in the Children (Performances) Regulations 1968. In summary, an employer must obtain a licence for every performance in which a child is to take part unless the child will take part in no more than three performances and neither the child nor anyone on their behalf will receive payment in respect of the performance. The times allowed for a child to take part in a rehearsal or performance varies according to whether the performance is to be broadcast or recorded or not. If the performance is not to be broadcast or recorded, a child may not take part in a rehearsal or performance on more than six days in any period of seven days, nor may she or he take part in any rehearsal or performance if the entire production, including intervals, exceeds three and a half hours or of his or her part or appearances exceeds two and a half hours. She or he may not take part in more than one performance on any school day unless granted absence from school.

    For children taking part in broadcast or recorded performances the chart identifies the time limits.

    There is no limit to the number of days in a year on which a child may perform. This is decided on an individual basis for each child with account being taken of their health, welfare, general wellbeing and education.
    99W

    Daily working allowances and requirements of children taking part in broadcast and recorded performances

    Age of child

    Maximum number of hours permitted at the place of performance or rehearsal

    Earliest and latest permitted times at that place

    Maximum period of continuous performance or rehearsal

    Maximum number of hours performance or rehearsal

    Minimal intervals for meals and rest

    Minimum number of hours education on school days if being privately taught1

    9 or over

    9.5

    7.00 am to 7.00 pm

    1 hour

    4 hours

    If present at the place of performance or rehearsal for more than four consecutive hours two, one of which must be at least an hour and the other at least 15 minutes. If at present at place of performance or rehearsal for more than eight consecutive hours three, two of which must each be at least an hour and the others at least 15 minutes

    3

    5 but under 9

    7.5

    9.00 am to 4.30 pm

    45 minutes

    3 hours

    If present at the place of performance or rehearsal for more than three and a half consecutive hours two, one of which must be at least one hour and the other at least 15 minutes. If present at the place of performance or rehearsal for more than eight consecutive hours three, two of which must each be at least an hour and the others at least 15 minutes

    3

    Under 5

    5

    9.30 am to 4.30 pm

    30 minutes

    2 hours

    Any time during which the child is not taking part in a performance or rehearsal must be used for meals, rest, and recreation

    —

    1 The time required for tuition, three hours per normal school day, may be aggregated over a four week period, or if engaged for less than four weeks for that period, provided that a child receives at least six hours tuition per week and no more than five hours in any one day

    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) statutory regulations and (b) guidelines issued to local authorities cover the granting of licences to employers for child performances; and what the (i) recommended, (ii) average and (iii) range of response times are for local authorities in the granting of licences to employers for child performances were in the last year for which figures are available. [81754]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Children (Performances) Regulations 1968, as amended govern the issue of child performance licences. Licences must be issued within 21 days of receipt of a complete application. Figures are not collected centrally on child employment licensing.

    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many licences were(a) granted to and (b) applied for by employers for child performances in each of the past three years. [81761]

    Jacqui Smith
    The figures requested are not collected centrally.

    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has carried out into the current arrangements for licensing child performances; and if he will place copies in the Library. [81762]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Government have not conducted research into the arrangements for child performance licensing.

    Continuing Care
    Paul Farrelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are receiving NHS-funded 100W
    continuing care in (a) NHS hospitals and (b) nursing homes in each strategic health authority area in the UK; [80489]

    (2) how many continuing care assessments have been made each year since 1996 in the area of the former North Staffordshire health authority; and of those, how many have been deemed (a) eligible and (b) not eligible to receive NHS-funded continuing care. [80487]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not collected centrally. Data for newly eligible patients in North Staffordshire for the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 are in the table. Data for patients who are not eligible have never been collected. No more recent data exists. From March 2003, the Department will be collecting information on the total number of people receiving continuing national health service health care and the number of people newly meeting eligibility criteria for continuing NHS health care.

    Number of people newly meeting 'eligibility' criteria for continuing in-patient care, North Staffordshire health authority

    Physically ill

    Mentally ill

    Others

    Total

    2000–01

    90

    45

    51

    186

    1999–2000

    87

    42

    48

    177

    1998–99

    90

    42

    49

    181

    1997–98

    1—

    1—

    1—

    215

    1996–97

    1—

    1—

    1—

    289

    1 ata not subdivided

    Delayed Discharges
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the Quarter 2 2002–03 emergency readmission and delayed discharge figures for over 75s in the Library. [81720]
    101W
    Jacqui Smith.
    The Quarter 2, September 2002, figures on delayed discharge and emergency readmission should be available in December and when it is available I will put a copy in the Library.

    Diabetes
    Mr. Adrian Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the National Service Framework delivery strategy for diabetes before the end of this year; [80788]

    (2) if he will ensure that the diabetes National Service Framework makes it clear to local health bodies that diabetes is a funding priority; and if he will make a statement. [80787]

    Mr. Lammy
    We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks. We have included two national targets for diabetes, for retinal screening and for practice-based registers and structured care, in `Improvement, Expansion and Reform', which sets the priorities for the National Health Service for the next three years. We shall make announcements on funding for the NHS shortly.

    European Food Safety Authority
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will be making nominations for the membership of the European Food Safety Authority's Scientific Panels; if he has made nominations for the panel on genetically modified organisms; whom he has nominated; which criteria were used to make nominations; and whether stakeholders and the public will be asked to make nominations. [80720]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The Government will not be making nominations. All members of the European food safety authority's scientific panels will be independent scientific experts selected following an open call for expressions of interest and appointed by the authority's management board.

    Foster Carers
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many foster families were recruited in each of the last five years; [82033]

    (2) how many foster carers were (a) single and (b) couples in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [82032]

    (3) how many foster parents have been recruited in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [81105]

    Jacqui Smith
    There is no national data collection of the number of foster parents recruited by local authorities and independent foster agencies.

    Hepatitis C
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the national strategy on hepatitis C will be implemented; what funding will be available; and what timetables are proposed. [80809]
    102W
    Ms Blears
    The hepatitis C Strategy for England will form the basis of an action plan as proposed in the Chief Medical Officer's infectious diseases strategy, Getting Ahead of the Curve. This action plan will be drawn up by the end of 2002, following the consultation exercise. It will serve as a clear framework setting out actions that need to be taken by Government, the national health service and others to secure improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C.

    A number of funding streams will support the strategy. A major component has been included in health authority allocations to support the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended combination drug treatments for moderate/severe liver disease caused by hepatitis C. Other funding streams are:
    Central funding of £1.3 million over two years, 2002–03 and 2003–04, has been allocated for raising professional and public awareness and improving surveillance. Funding for future years has yet to be decided.
    Funding for the voluntary sector specifically for hepatitis C projects and for projects which are directed at prevention activities for injecting drug users in general has been increased and currently stands at around £0.2 million for 2002–03.

    HIV prevention funding includes health promotion for injecting drug users. From 2002–03, HIV prevention is funded through main national health service allocations and £55 million has been included for the coming year. From the returns collected under the AIDS (Control) Act, approximately 14 per cent. in 1999–2000 of the separate allocation before mainstreaming was spent on prevention work on injecting drug use.
    The Department also has a central budget for drug misuse for the National Treatment Agency of £175.7 million for 2002–03.

    MMR Vaccinations
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate supplies of single component MMR vaccinations for those parents(a) whose children have already started a course of such vaccinations and (b) who wish their children to start a course of such vaccinations. [82020]

    Ms Blears
    The Department does not purchase single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines for children. This is because the triple MMR vaccine provides the best protection against these three potentially fatal diseases.

    Children who have started a course of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations can complete it using the triple MMR vaccine. Children wishing to start a course of single vaccines are recommended to use the triple vaccine.

    Royal United Hospital, Bath
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the length of ambulance waits outside casualty at the Royal United Hospital, Bath; [80722]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the length of trolley waits at the Royal United Hospital, Bath; [80724]

    (3) what assessment he has made of current and foreseeable wait time data at the Royal United Hospital, Bath. [80723]
    103W
    Ms Blears
    Information on ambulance waits outside accident and emergency departments is not collected centrally. However, I have been advised by Wiltshire Ambulance Service national health service trust that waiting times at the Royal United Hospital, Bath have substantially improved in the past two months and average waits are not disrupting ambulance services.

    I am also advised by Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority that Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust has had no trolley waits over 12 hours since July 2002 and that the trust is meeting waiting time targets for both in-patients and outpatients. The trust is continuing to work to minimise trolley waits and to improve waiting times. It is aiming to hit both the 12-month target for in-patients and also the 21–week target for out-patients by the end of March 2003.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial position of(a) Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust, (b) West Wiltshire NHS Primary Care Trust and (c) Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. [80725]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The Royal United Hospital Bath is reporting a forecast income and expenditure deficit of £25.2 million for the financial year 2002–03. This deficit is acknowledged to be part of a wider Bath health community financial deficit of £30.7 million and is not wholly attributable to any individual organisation. Bath health community is working in conjunction with the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority to develop plans leading to financial balance.

    Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust is predicting a year-end deficit of £1.4 million. West Wiltshire Primary Care Trust also has a deficit of £1.2 million. The trusts continue to work with partner agencies to develop solutions to address these problems. Progress has been made in a number of localities and a consultation on service development is under way in others.

    Waiting Lists (Mental Health)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form he collects statistics on the number of children waiting to be referred to the CAHMS; and what the figures are for the last two years for which figures are available. [81719]

    Jacqui Smith
    The only information currently available on the waiting time for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) is by the consultant specialty of child and adolescent psychiatry. The latest information on waiting times for inpatient and outpatient appointments is shown in the tables.

    We recognise that in some places waiting times CAMHS are unacceptably long. The development of CAMHS is an important part of the work we are taking forward in the children's national service framework. In 2002–3 we are investing an additional 40 million in services provided by the national health service and local authorities which will help in reducing waiting.
    104W
    On the 16 October my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced that CAMHS would receive an additional investment of 140 million over the next three years through increased grants to local authorities. This will build capacity, improve access and, together with new NHS investment, help deliver for the first time a comprehensive CAMHS service for every area.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Congestion Charging
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81857]

    Maria Eagle
    Within the proposed central London charging zone there are 112 parking spaces available to employees of the Department. There are no parking spaces designated for visitors to the Department.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81837]

    Maria Eagle
    All civil servants are responsible for their own every day home to office travel costs. The introduction of a central London road users' charge will not affect this basic condition of service. However, staff on official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated cost is to his Department of the central London road user charging scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81876]

    Maria Eagle
    All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own every day home to office travel costs. The introduction of a central London road user charge will not affect this basic condition of service. Any additional costs incurred to the Department by staff on official business as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

    Information on the number of departmental employees who travel to the central London area on official business is not held centrally. I am therefore unable to give an estimate of the likely cost to the Department.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. MacDougall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will take powers to make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of age. [81692]

    Alan Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.
    105W
    The Government are committed to introducing legislation under the European Employment Directive outlawing age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006.

    The Government have already sought views on a number of general age issues in the consultation document "Towards Equality and Diversity" and we intend to consult again on specific proposals by summer 2003.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Domestic Violence
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Minister for Women when she will publish the results of her inquiry into the economic costs of domestic violence. [81089]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The research project is scheduled to conclude in summer 2003 and the report will be published thereafter.

    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Minister for Women when the Women and Equality Unit and the Public Carriage Office will publish their package of measures and promotional products regarding reducing domestic violence; and what these measures will include. [81090]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The Women and Equality Unit and the Public Carriage Office are continuing to develop plans on awareness raising and domestic violence. We are currently consulting with major charities and with women and children in order to market test a number of propositions. Further details will be announced shortly.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to carry out a review of regional development agency boundaries. [80422]

    Alan Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Government have no plans to carry out a review of the regional development agency boundaries.

    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanisms exist for the review of regional development agency boundaries. [80423]

    Alan Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    The boundaries of the regional development agencies are set out in Schedule 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Section 1 of that Act provides that any reference in Schedule 1 to a local government or administrative area is to that area as it is for the time being.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    LPG Stations
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of petrol stations in the UK supply liquefied petroleum gas to customers. [80505]
    106W
    Mr. Wilson
    The Liquid Petroleum Gas Association (LPGA) informed my Department that there is currently a total of 1179 LPG public refuelling stations in UK (including Offshore Islands and Ireland), of which 666 are located at petrol stations.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of requiring(a) new and (b) refurbished petrol stations to provide liquefied petroleum gas. [80506]

    Mr. Wilson
    An impact assessment has currently not been undertaken, however at a meeting between my Department and the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association in January this year, the association informed us that new retail sites are opening at a rate approaching one per day. Given the incentives from both DFT and my Department and the rate at which sites are opening, the Government continue to promote, encourage, and more importantly continue to raise the awareness of alternative fuel in particular LPG, by continue working with Energy and Transport Industries.

    ASW Sheerness (Receivers)
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many meetings the senior executives at GOSE and SEEDA had with(a) management and (b) workforce at ASW Sheerness since 11 July 2002 to discuss its future; [81075]

    (2) what representations she has received from (a) the Chairman and CEO of SEEDA and (b) the GOSE management on the future of ASW Sheerness since 11 July 2002; [81092]

    (3) how many meetings the senior executives at GOSE and SEEDA have had with KPMG as receivers for ASW Sheerness since 11 July 2002. [81074]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: Since ASW went into administrative receivership on 11 July 2002, the Chief Executive and senior officials from SEEDA and GOSE have remained in close touch with my Department on the future of the company.

    While the company was in the hands of the receiver, KPMG, the DTI has led the contact with the receiver and in these contacts has taken fully into account the representations it has received from SEEDA and GOSE. During this time efforts made at a regional level by partners have concentrated on planning an appropriate response once the receivers have made a decision.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial help she can offer to ensure all of ASW Sheerness mills are kept on site. [81093]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: The rules governing aid to the steel industry are embodied in the European Commission Multi-Sectoral Framework on state aid and commission communications on rescue, restructuring and closure aid. These rules prohibit the provision of rescue and restructuring aid to steel companies.

    Battery Recycling
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she and her
    107W
    officials have had with her European counterparts regarding the recycling of nickel-cadmium batteries; and what plans there are to ban nickel-cadmium batteries (a) throughout the European Union and (b) in the UK. [80898]

    Mr. Wilson
    DTI officials have met European Commission officials and key battery organisations such as the European Portable Battery Association and collect NiCad to discuss the recycling of nickel cadmium batteries. DTI officials have also met SAFT, a battery manufacturer that runs the Bat-Re-Back scheme in the UK which accepts all industrial nickel cadmium batteries for recycling.

    Beyond transposing the terms of a Commission Decision amending Annex II of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive, which requires member states to ensure that cadmium in batteries for electric vehicles is not put on the market after 31 December 2005, the UK has no plans at present to ban nickel cadmium batteries. A proposal for a new EU Batteries Directive is currently awaited, and this may call for significant reductions in the use of nickel cadmium batteries throughout the European Union.

    Table 1—supply interruptions per 100 connected customers

    %change

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–9

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    1990–91 to 2001–02

    Aquila

    169.99

    110.28

    129.44

    125.34

    121.32

    138.57

    147.55

    131.98

    120.82

    139.69

    147.77

    119.94

    EME

    169.40

    81.87

    74.54

    91.75

    96.09

    97.16

    95.07

    93.10

    76.47

    77.80

    91.38

    78.82

    EPN

    75.75

    67.50

    96.41

    59.15

    64.77

    84.80

    89.27

    73.71

    60.40

    66.61

    68.83

    82.92

    Hydro

    176.32

    204.14

    234.61

    177.92

    174.90

    193.20

    147.50

    153.10

    154.40

    141.20

    131.61

    124.71

    LPN

    40.68

    46.67

    38.12

    35.78

    39.71

    33.06

    38.52

    39.18

    36.89

    36.19

    39.75

    35.59

    NEDL

    107.71

    90.27

    86.69

    79.80

    88.71

    89.96

    89.04

    90.07

    92.59

    89.91

    98.09

    93.65

    SP

    70.46

    70.97

    83.10

    58.18

    61.08

    65.46

    57.01

    72.95

    85.75

    82.24

    91.52

    76.27

    SPN

    111.30

    102.91

    159.90

    99.60

    104.00

    95.20

    89.20

    91.00

    95.50

    89.90

    88.50

    90.88

    Southern

    80.08

    81.27

    82.49

    78.21

    75.31

    79.31

    79.02

    72.73

    63.97

    74.37

    73.78

    99.15

    SP Manweb

    81.89

    73.75

    85.86

    88.64

    70.04

    61.50

    57.19

    57.33

    44.13

    53.08

    53.01

    51.60

    UU

    57.60

    61.50

    56.69

    55.85

    69.70

    60.50

    59.50

    83.80

    57.60

    54.70

    54.10

    49.36

    WPD South. Wales

    284.60

    228.00

    195.28

    213.50

    219.70

    223.30

    191.70

    185.70

    150.20

    152.70

    158.20

    128.40

    WPD south-west

    146.00

    128.50

    118.30

    119.40

    123.90

    116.20

    105.50

    105.50

    80.10

    90.40

    86.50

    107.06

    YEDL

    158.45

    69.06

    71.82

    71.05

    84.78

    86.49

    93.12

    80.00

    71.79

    73.03

    69.82

    58.70

    Average

    123.59

    101.19

    108.09

    96.73

    99.57

    101.77

    95.66

    95.01

    85.04

    87.27

    89.49

    85.50

    30.82

    Note:

    CIs = the number of customers interrupted per 100 customers per year.

    Table 2—average customer minutes lost per customer per year

    %change

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    1990–91 to 2001–02

    Aquila

    397.76

    118.14

    122.22

    144.12

    127.96

    151.30

    125.97

    116.21

    99.69

    116.95

    143.22

    122.21

    EME

    1,003.88

    87.34

    86.87

    97.40

    104.93

    94.59

    78.97

    82.24

    70.32

    71.89

    111.62

    92.73

    EPN

    75.60

    65.42

    90.56

    63.34

    94.24

    84.94

    77.47

    70.09

    52.88

    53.00

    66.24

    67.88

    Hydro

    172.02

    270.26

    355.82

    254.12

    233.00

    365.00

    205.70

    219.50

    220.00

    123.30

    111.46

    143.46

    LPN

    51.31

    67.31

    52.78

    51.80

    58.06

    53.94

    55.92

    50.05

    45.21

    38.76

    43.49

    36.16

    NEDL

    245.96

    97.03

    101.95

    102.27

    94.66

    86.26

    81.80

    86.64

    97.76

    85.24

    109.76

    87.35

    SP

    85.30

    75.58

    97.50

    76.95

    69.92

    81.03

    88.57

    77.36

    177.31

    76.58

    151.88

    87.46

    SPN

    111.60

    96.20

    118.30

    84.10

    93.30

    77.90

    89.30

    92.00

    75.80

    73.20

    74.50

    88.87

    Southern

    103.98

    109.18

    91.30

    74.40

    77.61

    77.98

    67.23

    56.03

    51.63

    57.54

    68.74

    90.85

    SP Manweb

    185.10

    108.46

    129.29

    120.79

    101.80

    88.37

    77.51

    96.70

    54.69

    55.66

    55.09

    62.52

    UU

    87.70

    74.70

    76.50

    68.70

    70.00

    67.00

    65.90

    96.40

    79.90

    62.70

    59.70

    54.29

    WPD South Wales

    330.07

    325.38

    212.33

    199.50

    212.00

    232.70

    189.30

    182.90

    145.20

    136.80

    123.30

    90.53

    WPD south-west

    185.20

    176.00

    183.60

    167.10

    133.10

    110.80

    103.10

    108.40

    57.70

    64.40

    70.00

    85.99

    YEDL

    174.63

    59.70

    59.30

    60.65

    68.59

    62.29

    59.70

    59.10

    53.70

    53.66

    56.21

    54.78

    Average

    229.29

    123.62

    127.02

    111.80

    109.94

    116.72

    97.60

    99.54

    91.56

    76.41

    88.94

    83.22

    63.71

    Notes:

    1. CMLs = average customer minutes lost per customer per year.

    2. Over the period 1990–91 to 2001–02, the number of customer interruptions per 100 connected customers fell by 30.82 per cent. and the average number of customer minutes lost per customer fell by 63.71 per cent.

    3. It is important to note that in order to meet accuracy requirements, the DNOs were required to introduce new measurement systems by April 2002. This has meant that there was an increase in the accuracy of reporting in 2001–02. In some cases, this may have led to an increase in reported performance despite the underlying performance remaining the same.
    108W

    College of Arms
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will include members of the College of Arms in the consultation on employment rights for atypical worker. [81653]

    Alan Johnson
    We are currently engaged in a wide-ranging consultation on the issue of employment status, and will include officers of the College in that consultation.

    Electricity Supply (Consumer Interruptions)
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has received on the number of electricity power supply cuts in each county in England in each of the last 10 years. [80932]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: Data on interruptions in supply of electricity to consumers is collected by Ofgem. It is gathered on the basis of the geographic areas covered by each distribution licence rather than by county. Reproduced in Tables 1 and 2 are the number of consumer interruptions, together with the consumer minutes lost. These provide an indication of the duration of interruption.
    109W

    Electricity Supply Network
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has received on the number of people employed in maintenance work in relation to the electricity supply network(a) in the last 12 months and (b) the last 12 months before privatisation. [80933]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 18 November 2002]: Our study on the Resilience of the Electricity Transmission and Distribution systems carried out by BPI (May 2002) showed that although overall staff numbers have declined, it was very difficult to make direct comparisons between the situation now and how it was pre-privatisation. Organisational boundaries, working practises and technological advances have changed the way companies operate and they all vary in the extent to which they employ direct labour or outsource work.

    Hydro-Electricity
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support is being given to encourage the harnessing of the potential for generation of hydro-electricity in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and how much support is given to wind generation. [80819]

    Mr. Wilson
    The main means through which hydro in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere is encouraged is through the Renewables Obligation which we introduced on 1 April this year. New hydro plant and existing hydro plant of up to 20 MW (built before 1990 and refurbished since end December 1989) are eligible for the Obligation.

    Wind energy generation, at both onshore and offshore sites in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere, is also eligible for the Renewables Obligation. In addition, the Government have made provision of £74 million over three years for capital grants for offshore wind energy projects.

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes are to be made to the Claims Handling Agreement to allow for more people to get larger sums of compensation for their illnesses and for different types of illness that can be contracted to be included; and if asthma is to be included in the CHA under circumstances other than temporary exacerbation of the condition. [80728]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Claims Handling Agreements arose out of the court proceedings which in 1997 found British Coal liable for Vibration White Finger (VWF) and in 1998 for respiratory disease. The Claims Handling Agreements deal specifically with compensation for conditions considered by the courts. There is no intention to extend them.

    Pneumoconiosis Compensation
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have been awarded lump sum payments under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme when under the age of 62 years since 1992. [81917]
    110W
    Mr. Wilson
    1,478 claimants under the age of 62 have been awarded lump sum payments under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme since 1992.

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have been awarded weekly benefits under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme since 1992. [81960]

    Mr. Wilson
    286 claimants have been awarded weekly benefits under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme since 1992.

    Power Failures
    Mr. Hurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that compensation is paid by the electricity supply companies following the power cuts on and after 27 October 2002. [80475]

    Mr. Wilson
    I would urge all customers who feel that their supplier has not fulfilled its responsibility to put in a claim for compensation (which should be made within one month of supply being restored).

    Compensation is a matter for the regulator's office, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) and I know that it is watching the situation closely.

    Compensation is not automatic in the case of storms. Initially, under the guaranteed standards of performance, it is for network operators to decide whether to offer compensation or to invoke an exemption for severe weather.

    Customers can challenge non-payment of compensation through the statutory consumer watchdog, Energywatch, which will liaise with Ofgem.

    In the final instance, after all other routes have been explored, Ofgem can make a determination.

    I welcome the fact that once company has recognised that customers do have rights and has announced that it will be paying compensation in certain circumstances.

    Mr. Hurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many homes in Essex were without power from 27 October 2002 for(a) 24 hours, (b) 36 hours, (c) 48 hours, (d) three days, (e) four days and (f) more than four days. [80476]

    Mr. Wilson
    I have been advised by LE Group that the numbers of customers without electricity in Essex arising from the storm on 27 October 2002 were as follows:

    Period without electricity

    Number of Customers

    (b) up to 36 hours

    15,715

    (c) up to 48 hours

    9,854

    (d) up to 3 days (72 hours)

    5,976

    (e) up to 4 days (96 hours)

    2,398

    (f) more than 4 days

    1,856

    With regard to your question (a), LE Group have advised me that they do not have an accurate figure for the number of customers without electricity in Essex

    111W
    after the first 24 hours. However they have confirmed that 159,791 customers in Essex were restored in the first 24 hours after the storm.

    Mr. Hurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with electricity suppliers since 27 October 2002. [80477]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Department has regular discussions with electricity suppliers. However, following the storms of 27 October, I commissioned British Power International (BPI) to carry out an independent review of the extent to which distribution networks were able to withstand severe weather, and how the distribution licence holders handled the emergency caused by the recent storms. The electricity network operators who are to be reviewed are:London Electricity Group, including 24 seven (covering the Eastern, London and Seeboard distribution areas);
    Scottish and Southern Energy (in respect of the Southern area);
    Western Power Distribution (covering the south-west and South Wales);
    Powergen (covering the east midlands);
    Aquila (covering the west midlands);
    Scottish Power (in respect of the MANWEB area); and
    United Utilities (which manages the network in the north-west).

    The review has already started and involves detailed questions to each of the companies. Initial findings will be published by the end of December.

    Regional Selective Assistance
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) amount and (b) proportion of the Government's budget for regional selective assistance to the Government's south west zone has been allocated to (a) Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and (b) the remainder of its zone in each of the last four years for which information is available. [80758]

    Alan Johnson
    Based on offers of regional selective assistance made:

    Value (£ million)

    Per cent of total south west region

    1998–99

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    8.1

    57

    Remainder of south west region

    6.1

    43

    1999–2000

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    2.1

    25

    Remainder of south west region

    6.2

    75

    2000–01

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    1.0

    12

    Remainder of south west region

    7.6

    88

    2001–02

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    4.8

    57

    Remainder of south west region

    3.6

    43

    Storm Damage
    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on sustainable energy requirements in the British Isles. [80425]
    112W
    Mr. Wilson
    The Government are currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the new year. The White Paper will show how energy policy fits within the Government's overall approach to sustainable development.

    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent assessment she has made of the damage to the electricity distribution network caused by trees and branches during recent storms; and if she will make a statement; [80880]

    (2) what plans she has to resume cutting back trees and branches close to power lines to avoid disruption to power supplies; and if she will make a statement. [80827]

    Mr. Wilson
    On 29 October 2002, I commissioned British Power International (BPI), to carry out an independent review of how the distribution licence holders handled the emergency caused by the recent storms. The electricity network operators who are to be reviewed are:London Electricity Group including 24 seven (covering the Eastern, London and Seeboard distribution areas);
    Scottish & Southern Energy (in respect of the Southern area);
    Western Power Distribution (covering the South West and South Wales);
    Powergen (covering the East Midlands);
    Aquila (covering the West Midlands);
    Scottish Power (in respect of the MANWEB area)
    United Utilities (which manages the network in the North West)

    The review has already started and initial findings will be published by the end of December. The study will include an assessment of the condition of the network and its ability to withstand such storms. This includes the degree to which trees and branches have been lopped to prevent them falling on lines during the high winds.

    Vibration White Finger
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under what circumstances would someone get compensation under the Claims Handling Agreement for illness contracted from mining work. [81038]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Department has two Claims Handling Agreements (CHA's which cover illnesses contracted from mining work. One covers Respiratory Disease and the other covers Vibration White Finger (VWF). The Agreements set out in detail the circumstances in which miners or their families are eligible for compensation.

    In order for a claimants to pursue a claim for Respiratory disease the miner needs to have worked after 4 June 1954 for mines in England and Wales, and after 4 June 1949 for mines in Scotland, as well as show signs of respiratory illness as covered by the CHA. In order to pursue a claim for Vibration White Finger the miner must have worked in mines after 1 January 1975 and show signs of Vibration White Finger. Any compensation which claimants then receive for either type of illness would be dependent upon results of a Medical Assessment, the years spent working in the mine, the type of work undertaken, other factors that may influence a claimant's ill health, as well as other factors stipulated under the agreements.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Duties
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott)
  We want to encourage people to stand as local councillors. We recognise their voluntary contribution as an important aspect of public life. We recognise that this commitment can be time-consuming, and therefore welcome employers encouraging their employees to serve as councillors by allowing them paid time-off to carry out their council duties.

  The Electoral Commission has published its view that, under Schedule 7 to the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 ("the Act"), the provision of such paid time-off should be treated as a political donation to the employee in his or her capacity as a holder of elective office. On the basis of this view, the value of such paid time-off must be reported to the Commission, where the total is more than £1,000 for each employee in the course of a year. In addition, employees will not lawfully be able to accept such paid time-off from their employers where these are not "permissible donors" under the Act.

  The Government accepts that there has been uncertainty surrounding the issue. However, the Government's long-standing policy is that the provisions of the Act should not apply to the receipt by a councillor of paid time-off for carrying out his or her duty as a councillor. It would be clearly wrong for some employers not to be able to offer paid time-off to their employees to serve as councillors. Moreover requirements on other employers, and in some cases their employees, to calculate and to report the value of such paid time-off to the Electoral Commission would be a disincentive for employers from supporting employees who wish to serve as councillors.

  Consequently, we are proposing to include in the Local Government Bill, announced on 13 November in the Queen's Speech, amendments to Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The effect of these amendments would be to exclude the value of any salary paid to an employee by an employer in respect of time-off taken in order to undertake duties as a local councillor from the definition of a donation in Schedule 7 to the Act. This would mean that it will be open to all employers to grant such paid time-off, and that the value of such time-off would not have to be reported to the Electoral Commission.

  We are providing for these amendments to apply with retrospective effect, so that any paid time-off which might have been granted to councillors since 16 February 2001, when the requirements of Schedule 7 to Act came into force, is not to be considered as a political donation.
  12WS

  Empty Homes
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government recognises that council tax information may be useful to local authority empty homes services in their work to get such property back into use. However, it is unclear whether legislation as it currently stands allows either personal or non-personal information collected for council tax purposes to be divulged to, or used by, other parts of an authority and we are aware that the Information Commissioner has advised that the legislation does not permit such uses of council tax personal information.

  The Government has therefore decided to legislate in the forthcoming Local Government Bill to make it clear local authorities can use personal and non-personal council tax information to support the development and implementation of strategies dealing with empty homes. In legislating, we will ensure that personal information will be limited to an individual's name or an address or number for communicating with him. I believe this is a sensible and proportionate response which will help get more long term empty domestic property back into use.

  Council Tax
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  In the light of responses to last November's consultation paper on proposed changes for second homes and long term empty homes, we have decided to give local authorities new discretion in relation to council tax discounts and exemptions.

  Firstly, we will allow English local authorities to reduce council tax discounts on second homes from 50 per cent to a minimum 10 per cent. Authorities in the areas where the discount has been reduced will retain any additional council tax raised. We do not propose to reduce their revenue support grant to reflect their ability to raise more council tax. The changes could raise an estimated extra £65 million in England and authorities will be able to decide how to spend this money to improve local public services, such as affordable housing, transport or policing.

  We have decided not to remove the discount completely because owners need an incentive to inform the local authority that properties are second homes. Without such information, local authorities would not be able to identify the extra revenue which could be raised from changing the discount.

  We recognise the special position of those who are required to live in tied accommodation provided by their employer or because of a legal requirement, such as a condition of a licence. A discount of 50 per cent will continue to apply in these cases.

  Secondly, we will allow English local authorities to reduce or remove completely the current 50 per cent council tax discounts on long term empty dwellings. Authorities will not retain any additional revenue raised. This is because we believe that decisions on whether to end the discount should be based purely on whether the measure is likely to make owners consider bringing their properties back into use.
  13WS
  Thirdly, we will give local authorities in England and Wales powers to create their own discounts and exemptions, including powers to grant relief on a case by case basis. Authorities exercising these powers will meet the costs of any new discounts or exemptions.

  These decisions follow consultation on the proposals which demonstrated strong support for the reduction of discounts on second and long-term empty homes.

  An analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise has already been placed in the Library of the House and on the web-site of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  These measures require primary legislation. As we said in the consultation draft of our Local Government Bill published on 12 June, we plan to add these measures to this Bill before it is introduced.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "Success for All" Strategy
  The Minister of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  We will today launch the "Success for All" strategy for reforming further education and training. "Success for All" will build on the strengths and systematically tackle the weaknesses within the learning and skills sector, through a programme of reforms which will:improve the responsiveness, design and quality of provision in each locality to meet learner, employer and community needs, with providers focusing on their individual strengths;
  achieve excellence in teaching and learning across the sector by identifying, creating and disseminating good, learning materials and training and support practice programmes;
  improve leadership, raise the number of qualified teachers, managers and support staff in the sector, and ensure better rewards for high performing staff; and
  Establish a new planning, funding and accountability system for providers in the sector.

  This strategy represents a vote of confidence for the learning and skills sector, and will be supported by our largest ever investment programme in further education and training:
  the total planned funding for further education allocated to the Learning and Skills Council will rise by £1.2 billion by 2005–6 compared to 2002–3, a 19 per cent. real terms increase in 3 years;
  all learning and skills providers will negotiate 3-year funding deals based on agreed assumptions on participation levels;
  capital funding for the whole learning and skills sector allocated to the LSC will rise by over 60 per cent. in real terms by 2005–6 compared to 2002–3; and
  funding of over £40million in 2003–4 rising to over £100 million in the year 2005–6, to deliver a major programme of training and support for teachers and trainers across the learning and skills sector in response to area reviews and inspection findings

  For further education and sixth form colleges, we will provide new money sufficient to raise the core unit of funding by 2 per cent. each year in real terms, on average. Targeted funds for college pay and staff training will also be consolidated into core funding, further boosting the core unit of funding by at least 3.5 per cent. from 2003–4.
  14WS
  Higher funding rates will be paid to colleges who perform well in meeting the needs of learners and employers. Poor performing colleges will get lower increases. Where necessary they will receive additional support and intervention until they improve. By 2005–6, this investment should enable a substantial narrowing of the core funding gap between FE and school sixth forms, and of the pay gap for staff between general FE colleges and schools.

  We are also committed to further investment in work based learning providers to deliver the major reform of Modern Apprenticeships recommended by the MA Advisory Committee under Sir John Cassels, and the PSA target of 28 per cent. of young people entering MAs before they are 22 by 2004. We will make further announcements in due course about assumed funding for work based learning and adult and community learning.

DEFENCE

  Medical Manning and Retention
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Medical Manning and Retention Review has recently been completed. It was conducted inclusively, with the involvement of the British Medical and Dental Associations and NHS representation. The Review was undertaken against the background of serious manning shortfalls among medical and dental officers in the Defence Medical Services (DMS). It complements the work of the Medical Quinquennial Review (MQR) and its recommendations will be taken forward in parallel with those of the MQR. The Review will inform the Ministry of Defence paper of evidence to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) for the 2003 pay round.

  The Review has involved a detailed examination of the manning requirement and how this should be met. It has also examined the factors which influence medical and dental officer manning and, to assist in this, an independent human resources consultant was employed to obtain the views of serving medical and dental officers and those who had recently left the Armed Forces. As part of the Review, comparisons were made with pay and conditions of service in the NHS and other potential areas of employment. The MOD's existing proposals for aligning the terms of service of medical and dental officers across the three Services were also re-examined.

  The Review concluded that three main issues needed to be addressed if the necessary improvements in recruitment and retention were to be achieved: overstretch; pay and pensions; and the quality of life. It made a number of recommendations covering both remuneration and non-financial issues. The main recommendations are:
  New pay arrangements, endorsed by the AFPRB, which will form the basis for our evidence on medical and dental officers' pay to the AFPRB early in the New Year. It is planned that the new pay structure will be implemented in two phases; the first, which contains most of the changes, with effect from 1 April 2003, and the second with effect from 1 April 2004;
  Interim improvements to the pension arrangements for DMS medical and dental officers in advance of the introduction of a final salary scheme for all military personnel around 2005–6;

  15WS
  Introduction of "Golden hellos" not exceeding £50,000 gross for a commensurate 5-year return of service to improve direct entry recruiting in those medical specialities that are in short supply and have a significant deployment base

  The Review also addressed the need further to strengthen management processes across the DMS and proposed a range of recommendations encompassing management, career and quality of life issues which will receive urgent action.

  The outcome of the Review will provide a significant opportunity to build on the work of the MQR and maintain focus on the two key defence medical outputs—deployable operational medical capability, and timely appropriate healthcare for Service personnel. The Government is committed to providing modern and

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Attendance Allowance

  higher rate

  56.25

  57.20

  lower rate

  37.65

  38.30

  Child Benefit

  —only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (couple)

  15.75

  16.05

  —only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (lone parent)

  17.55

  17.55

  —each subsequent child

  10.55

  10.75

  Council Tax Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  25 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  lone parent—18 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  couple—one or both over 18

  84.65

  85.75

  Dependent Children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  37.00

  38.50

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  37.80

  38.50

  Pensioner (from October 2003)

  single—60 to 64

  102.10

  couple—one or both 60 to 64

  155.80

  single—65 and over

  116.90

  couple—one or both 65 and over

  175.00

  Premiums

  family

  14.75

  15.75

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  pensioner

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  disability

  single

  23.00

  23.30

  couple

  32.80

  33.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.25

  11.40

  disabled child rate

  11.25

  16.60

  couple rate

  16.25

  16.45

  severe disability

  single

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (both qualify)

  84.50

  85.90

  disabled child

  35.50

  41.30

  carer

  24.80

  25.10

  bereavement

  21.55

  22.80

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  18.90

  19.35

  lower rate

  15.10

  15.50

  16WS
  forward-looking Defence Medical Services fit to meet the challenges we expect to face in the twenty-first century.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Uprating
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The new rates of benefits proposed from April 2003 are set out in the tables. The Annual uprating of benefits will take place in the first full week of the tax year. In 2003, this will be the week beginning 7 April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland.
  17WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Non-dependent deductions

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: £293 or more

  6.95

  6.95

  —gross income: £235 to £292.99

  5.80

  5.80

  —gross income: £ 137 to £234.99

  4.60

  4.60

  —gross income less than £ 137

  2.30

  2.30

  others, aged 18 or over

  2.30

  2.30

  Alternative maximum Council Tax Benefit

  second adult on IS or JSA(ib)

  25% of Council Tax

  25% of Council Tax

  second adult's gross income:

  —under £137

  15% of Council Tax

  15% of Council Tax

  —£137 to £176.99

  7.5% of Council Tax

  7.5% of Council Tax

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  upper limit (PC guarantee) from October 2003

  No limit

  amount disregarded (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child disregard

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital

  disregarded and capital upper limit

  Tariff income (clmt/ptner 60 or over) from October 2003

  £1 for every £500 or part thereof between amount of capital disregard and

  capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  20.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  94.50

  94.50

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  140.00

  140.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus

  50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in WTC

  11.65

  11.90

  30 Hr Adult Credit in WTC

  11.65

  11.90

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.40

  9.65

  Dependency Increases

  Adult Dependency Increases for spouse or person looking after children, with;

  retirement pension or own insurance

  45.20

  46.35

  long-term incap. benefit, unemployability supplement

  42.45

  43.15

  severe disablement allowance

  25.45

  25.90

  invalid care allowance (carer's allowance from April 2003)

  25.35

  25.80

  short-term incap. benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  40.80

  41.50

  maternity allowance/short-term incap. benefit

  33.10

  33.65

  Child Dependency Increases with; retirement pension, widowed mothers allowance, widowed parents allowance, short-term incap. benefit at the higher rate and long-term incap. benefit invalid care allowance (carer's allowance from April 2003)

  severe disab. allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and short-term incap. benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  11.35

  11.35

  NB-The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases to be adjusted where the increase is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom ChB is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase is reduced by the differential (less £3.50 from April 2000), between the rate of ChB payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child

  18WS 19WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Disability Living Allowance

  Care Component

  highest

  56.25

  57.20

  middle

  37.65

  38.30

  lowest

  14.90

  15.15

  Mobility Component

  higher

  39.30

  39.95

  lower

  14.90

  15.15

  Earnings Rules

  Invalid Care Allowance (Carer's Allowance from April 2003)

  75.00

  77.00

  Limit of earnings from councillor's allowance (new rate applies from October 2002)

  66.00

  67.50

  Permitted work earnings limit (new rate applies from October 2002)

  66.00

  67.50

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual

  3,432.00

  3,510.00

  amount)

  Adult dependency increases with short-term incap. benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  33.10

  33.65

  (b) over pension age

  40.80

  41.50

  maternity allowance

  33.10

  33.65

  retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement

  allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  53.95

  54.65

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  45.09

  retirement pension, long term incap. benefit

  45.20

  46.35

  and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  42.45

  43.15

  severe disablement allowance where dependent not living with claimant

  25.45

  25.90

  invalid care allowance (carer's allowance from April 2003)

  25.35

  25.80

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of

  claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  155.00

  160.00

  for each subsequent child

  20.00

  20.00

  Guardian's Allowance

  11.35

  11.55

  Housing Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  25 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  lone parent

  under 18

  42.70

  43.25

  18 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  couple

  both under 18

  64.45

  65.30

  one or both 18 or over

  84.65

  85.75

  dependent children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  37.00

  38.50

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  37.80

  38.50

  pensioner (from October 2003)

  single-60 to 64

  102.10

  couple-one or both 60 to 64

  155.80

  single-65 and over

  116.90

  couple-one or both 64 or over

  175.00

  Premiums

  family

  14.75

  15.75

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  pensioner

  44.20

  47.45

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  disability

  single

  23.00

  23.30

  couple

  32.80

  33.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.25

  11.40

  disabled child rate

  11.25

  16.60

  couple rate

  16.25

  16.45

  20WS 21WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  severe disability

  single

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (both qualify)

  84.50

  85.90

  disabled child

  35.50

  41.30

  carer

  24.80

  25.10

  bereavement

  21.55

  22.80

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  18.90

  19.35

  lower rate

  15.10

  15.50

  Non-dependent deductions, rent rebates and allowances

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income-based Job Seekers

  Allowance age 18 or over, not in remunerative work or

  —gross income less than £92

  7.40

  7.40

  age 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: less than £92

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £92 to £ 136.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £137 to £176.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £177 to £234.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £235 to £292.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £293 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Service charges for fuel heating

  9.40

  9.65

  hot water

  1.15

  1.20

  lighting

  0.80

  0.80

  cooking

  1.15

  1.20

  Amount ineligible for meals

  three or more meals a day

  single claimant

  19.25

  19.50

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  19.25

  19.50

  each child under 16

  9.70

  9.85

  less than three meals a day

  single claimant

  12.80

  12.95

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  12.80

  12.95

  each child under 16

  6.45

  6.55

  breakfast only-claimant and each member of family

  2.35

  2.40

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  upper limit (PC guarantee) from October 2003

  No limit

  amount disregarded (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child disregard

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded

  and capital upper limit

  Tariff income (clmt/ptner 60 or over) from October 2003

  £1 for every £500 or part thereof betwen amount of capital disregard and capital

  upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  20.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  94.50

  94.50

  childcare charges (2 or more children)

  140.00

  140.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus

  50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in WTC

  11.65

  11.90

  30 Hr Adult Credit in WTC

  11.65

  11.90

  22WS 23WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.40

  9.65

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  8.10

  8.25

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  10.80

  Incapacity Benefit

  Long-term Incapacity Benefit

  70.95

  72.15

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (under pension age)

  lower rate

  53.50

  54.40

  higher rate

  63.25

  64.35

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (over pension age)

  lower rate

  68.05

  69.20

  higher rate

  70.95

  72.15

  Increase of Long-term Incap. Benefit for age

  higher rate

  14.90

  15.15

  lower rate

  7.45

  7.60

  Invalidity Allowance (Transitional)

  higher rate

  14.90

  15.15

  middle rate

  9.50

  9.70

  lower rate

  4.75

  4.85

  Income Support

  Personal Allowances

  single

  under 18-usual rate

  32.50

  32.90

  under 18-higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  42.70

  43.25

  18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  25 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  lone parent

  under 18-usual rate

  32.50

  32.90

  under 18-higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  42.70

  43.25

  18 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  couple

  both under 18

  32.50

  32.90

  both under 18, one disabled

  42.70

  43.25

  both under 18, with resp. for a child

  64.45

  65.30

  one under 18, one 18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  one under 18, one 25 +

  53.95

  54.65

  both 18 or over

  84.65

  85.75

  dependent children

  birth to September following 16th birthday

  37.00

  38.50

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  37.80

  38.50

  Residental Allowance

  except Greater London

  64.40

  65.50

  Greater London

  71.65

  72.85

  Premiums

  family

  14.75

  15.75

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.90

  pensioner

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  disability

  single

  23.00

  23.00

  couple

  32.80

  33.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.25

  11.40

  disabled child rate

  11.25

  16.60

  couple rate

  16.25

  16.45

  severe disability

  single

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (both qualify)

  84.50

  85.90

  disabled child

  35.50

  41.30

  carer

  24.80

  25.10

  bereavement

  21.55

  22.80

  24WS 25WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  hospital

  higher rate

  18.90

  19.35

  lower rate

  15.10

  15.50

  local authority (Pt III) accommodation

  75.50

  77.45

  of which, Personal Expenses

  16.80

  17.50

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in:

  the Polish Home, Ilford Park max amount for accommodation and meals

  385.00

  390.00

  personal expenses for claimant

  17.35

  17.50

  personal expenses for partner

  17.35

  17.50

  personal expenses for dep children

  (a) under 11

  6.35

  6.45

  (b) 11 to 15

  9.30

  9.40

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.75

  10.90

  (d) 18

  15.55

  15.55

  personal expenses allowance for claimant admitted or readmitted on or after

  16.80

  17.50

  1 April 1995

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependents aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support

  or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in work or

  —gross income less than £92

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  —gross income: less than £92

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £92 to £ 136.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £ 137 to £ 176.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £177 to £234.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £235 to £292.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £293 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel and water costs, council

  2.70

  2.75

  tax and fines default, and

  deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.40

  5.50

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.70

  2.75

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.70

  2.75

  court order against couple

  4.25

  4.30

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  8.10

  8.25

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  10.80

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  29.00

  29.50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregard

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limited (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  12,000.00

  12,000.00

  amount disregarded (clmt/ptner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded

  and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  20.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.40

  9.65

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  75.50

  77.45

  lower rate

  22.65

  23.24

  Widower's pension

  75.50

  77.45

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependents

  100%

  114.80

  116.80

  90%

  103.32

  105.12

  26WS 27WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  80%

  91.84

  93.44

  70%

  80.36

  81.76

  60%

  68.88

  70.08

  50%

  57.40

  58.40

  40%

  45.92

  46.72

  30%

  34.44

  35.04

  20%

  22.96

  23.36

  Under 18

  100%

  70.35

  71.55

  90%

  63.32

  64.40

  80%

  56.28

  57.24

  70%

  49.25

  50.09

  60%

  42.21

  42.93

  60%

  42.21

  42.93

  50%

  35.18

  35.78

  40%

  28.14

  28.62

  30%

  21.11

  21.47

  20%

  14.07

  14.31

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  7,630.00

  7,760.00

  Unemployability Supplement

  70.95

  72.15

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  14.90

  15.15

  middle rate

  9.50

  9.70

  lower rate

  4.75

  4.85

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  45.92

  46.72

  Maximum retirement allowance

  11.84

  11.68

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  92.00

  93.60

  intermediate rate

  69.00

  70.20

  normal maximum rate

  46.00

  46.80

  part-time rate

  23.00

  23.40

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  46.00

  46.80

  Invalid Care Allowance (Carer's Allowance from April 2003)

  42.45

  43.15

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Contribution based JSA-Pers. rates

  under 18

  32.50

  32.90

  18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  25 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  Income-based JSA-Pers. allowances

  Under 18

  32.50

  32.90

  18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  25 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  lone parent

  under 18-usual rate

  32.50

  32.90

  under 18-higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  42.70

  43.25

  18 or over

  53.95

  54.65

  couple both under 18

  32.50

  32.90

  both under 18, one disabled

  42.70

  43.25

  both under 18, with responsibility for a child

  64.45

  65.30

  one under 18, one 18 to 24

  42.70

  43.25

  one under 18, one 25 -

  53.95

  54.65

  both 18 or over

  84.65

  85.75

  dependent children from birth to September following 16th birthday

  37.00

  38.50

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  37.80

  38.50

  Residental Alllowance except Greater Londen

  64.40

  65.50

  Greater London

  71.65

  72.85

  28WS 29WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Premiums

  family

  14.75

  15.75

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.90

  pensioner

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  44.20

  47.45

  couple

  65.15

  70.05

  disability

  single

  23.00

  23.30

  couple

  32.80

  33.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  11.25

  11.40

  disability child rate

  11.25

  16.60

  couple rate

  16.25

  16.45

  severe disability

  single

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.25

  42.95

  couple (both qualify)

  84.50

  85.90

  disabled child

  35.50

  41.30

  carer

  24.80

  25.10

  bereavement

  21.55

  22.80

  hospital

  higher rate

  18.90

  19.35

  lower rate

  15.10

  15.50

  local authority (Pt III)

  75.50

  77.45

  accommodation of which, Personal Expenses

  16.80

  17.50

  Housing costs deduction for non-dependents aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or:

  —gross income less than £92 aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: less than £92

  7.40

  7.40

  —gross income: £92 to £136.99

  17.00

  17.00

  —gross income: £137 to £176.99

  23.35

  23.35

  —gross income: £177 to £234.99

  38.20

  38.20

  —gross income: £235 to £292.99

  43.50

  43.50

  —gross income: £293 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deductions for direct payments

  Deductions from JSA (IB) arrears of housing, fuel and water costs, council tax and

  2.70

  2.75

  fines default, and

  Deductions for Child Maintenance

  deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.40

  5.50

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.70

  2.75

  Arrears of Community Charge

  court order against claimant

  2.70

  2.75

  court order against couple

  4.25

  4.30

  deductions from JSA (Cont.)

  Arrears of Community Charge, Council Tax, fines and overpayment recovery

  Age 16 to 17

  10.83

  10.96

  Age 18 to 24

  14.23

  14.41

  Age 25 +

  17.98

  18.21

  30WS 31WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Maximum deduction for arrears of Child Support Maintenance

  Age 16 to 17

  10.83

  10.96

  Age 18 to 24

  14.23

  14.41

  Age 25 +

  17.93

  18.21

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments in JSA(ib)

  ordinary overpayments

  8.10

  8.25

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  10.80

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  29.00

  29.50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  upper limit (claimant/partner 60 or over)

  12,000.00

  12,000.00

  amount disregarded (claimant/or partner 60 or over)

  6,000.00

  6,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded

  and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  20.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's convenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders: disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the

  20.00

  20.00

  balance of the charge

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.40

  9.65

  Maternity Allowance

  Standard rate

  75.00

  100.00

  MA threshold

  30.00

  30.00

  Pension Credit (from October 2003)

  Standard minimum guarantee

  single

  102.10

  couple

  155.80

  Additional amount for severe disability

  single

  42.95

  couple (one qualifies)

  42.95

  couple (both qualifies)

  85.90

  Additional amount for carer

  25.10

  Savings credit theshold

  single

  77.45

  couple

  123.80

  Capital

  Amount disregard

  6,000.00

  Amount disregard-care homes

  10,000.00

  Deemed income £1 for each complete £500 or part thereof in excess of above amounts

  Housing costs

  Deduction for non-dependents:

  aged 18 or over, not in work or in work and in receipt of Pension Credit

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in work:

  —gross income: less than £92

  7.40

  —gross income: £92 to £136.99

  17.00

  —gross income: £137 to £176.99

  23.35

  32WS 33WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  —gross income: £177 to £234.99

  38.20

  —gross income: £235 to £292.99

  43.50

  —gross income: £293 and above

  47.75

  Amount for claimant and first spouse in polygamous marriage

  155.80

  Additional amount for additional spouse

  53.70

  Disregards

  Standard earnings

  5.00

  Couples earnings

  10.00

  Higher earnings

  20.00

  War disablement pension and War widows pension

  10.00

  Widowed Parent's Allowance

  10.00

  Income from Subtenants

  20.00

  Income from boarders

  20.00

  (disregard the fixed amount (£20)

  plus

  50 per cent, of the balance of the charge)

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel, water costs, council tax and

  2.75

  fines default

  Arrears of Community Charge court order against claimant

  2.75

  court order against couple

  4.30

  Maximum rates of recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  8.25

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.80

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme and the Workmen's

  Compensation (Supplementation)

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  114.80

  116.80

  Partial disablement allowance

  42.45

  43.15

  Unemployability supplement

  70.95

  72.15

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  14.90

  15.15

  middle rate

  9.50

  9.70

  lower rate

  4.75

  4.85

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  92.00

  93.60

  intermediate rate

  69.00

  70.20

  normal maximum rate

  46.00

  46.80

  part-time rate

  23.00

  23.40

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  46.00

  46.80

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  42.45

  43.15

  based on loss of earnings over

  56.25

  57.20

  Retirement Pension

  Category A or B

  75.50

  77.45

  Category B (lower)-husband's insurance

  45.20

  46.35

  Category C or D-non-contributory

  45.20

  46.35

  Category C (lower)-non-contributory

  27.00

  27.70

  Additional pension

  Increase by:

  1.7 percent.

  Increments to:

  Increase by:

  Basic pension

  6.6 per cent.

  Additional pension

  1.7 per cent.

  Contracted out deductions (CODs) (Pre April 1988 earnings)

  1.7 per cent.

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB)

  1.7 percent.

  Increments to CODs (April 1988 to April 1997 earnings)

  Nil

  (3.0 per cent, paid by schemes)

  34WS 35WS

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates

  2002

  2003

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (unit)

  0.0921

  0.0937

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (Inherited)

  Increase by:

  1.7 percent.

  Addition at age 80

  0.25

  0.25

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Basic rate

  42.85

  43.60

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  Higher rate

  14.90

  15.15

  Middle rate

  9.50

  9.70

  Lower rate

  4.75

  4.85

  Statutory Adoption Pay

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  Rate

  100.00

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Earnings threshold

  75.00

  77.00

  Standard rate

  75.00

  100.00

  Statutory Paternity Pay

  Earnings threshold

  77.00

  Rate

  100.00

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Earnings threshold

  75.00

  77.00

  Standard rate

  63.25

  64.35

  Widow's Benefit

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  75.50

  77.45

  Widow's Pension Standard Rate

  75.50

  77.45

  Age-related

  Age 54 (49)

  70.22

  72.03

  53 (48)

  64.93

  66.61

  52 (47)

  59.65

  61.19

  51 (46)

  54.36

  55.76

  50 (45)

  49.08

  50.34

  49(44)

  43.79

  44.92

  48 (43)

  38.51

  39.50

  47 (42)

  33.22

  34.08

  46(41)

  27.94

  28.66

  45 (40)

  22.65

  23.24

  Note: For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  Bereavement Benefit

  Bereavement payment (lump sum)

  2,000.00

  2,000.00

  Widowed parent's allowance

  75.50

  77.45

  Bereavement Allowance

  Standard rate

  75.50

  77.45

  age-related

  age 54

  70.22

  72.03

  53

  64.93

  66.61

  52

  59.65

  61.19

  51

  54.36

  55.76

  50

  49.08

  50.34

  49

  43.79

  44.92

  48

  38.51

  39.50

  47

  33.22

  34.08

  46

  27.94

  28.66

  45

  22.65

  23.24

  36WS

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Lord Carey of Clifton
The Right Reverend and Right Honourable George Leonard Carey, lately Archbishop of Canterbury, having been created Baron Carey of Clifton, of Clifton in the City and County of Bristol, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach and the Lord Janner of Braunstone.

Current Affairs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Patel of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to increase awareness of current affairs in the population at large.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, news services perform a vital function. They provide a platform for open debate and allow members of the public to make informed and responsible decisions. One of the principles of regulation has been to ensure that high quality, impartial news is available to all viewers. That principle will be carried forward by the Communications Bill.
Lord Patel of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that a survey entitled Is Britain Dumbing Down? reveals a worrying lack of interest in current affairs and an obsession with show business celebrities? Does he think it worrying that 11 per cent could not name their own Prime Minister, let alone any other international leader? Sixty-six per cent did not know that Mr John Prescott or Mr Gordon Brown were Cabinet members. As we have decided to introduce citizenship tests for immigrants, should we not be equally concerned about the political awareness of our own citizens?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we would all share the concern about what was revealed in the survey to which my noble friend refers. There are surprising degrees of ignorance in the population about leading political figures, although all noble Lords will recognise that that is not just a question of personalities. The process and nature of our political decision-making is probably more important.
My noble friend will recognise that we seek, through the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, to increase awareness of the way in
250
which our society works and of how people can influence it to their own advantage, when they are newly arrived in the country. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the question of whether awareness of those concepts should be broadened to include the whole population. The citizenship curriculum is now, of course, part of the curriculum in secondary schools as well as in junior schools.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn. made an important point about citizenship. Is the Minister aware that. in some of our northern towns, women who want to learn English are told to wait and come back in a year's time, before any avenues can be opened to them? Will the Government follow the example of the Canadian citizenship education programme, which makes information available to people in various languages, before they learn English? When does the Minister expect Professor Crick's announcement about citizenship education to be made?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I know a little about one of the northern towns to which the noble Lord referred. He is right to say that, if we are to increase the competence in English of substantial numbers of people—particularly women—in the ethnic minority communities, we must make provision for that.
The noble Lord will know that his question is most timely. I understand that the Secretary of State is to make an announcement this week about increasing resources for further education. Classes in further education will provide the basis of the provision of such learning opportunities.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a question of supply and demand? There is a great deal of supply of high-class information—through the Internet, the BBC and ITV—but there is not quite the demand for it. People do not seem to be as interested as they used to be. Will he increase the Government's efforts to improve citizenship education in schools, in the hope that we can reconnect our young people with politics, political debate and current affairs, so that we have a healthy and vibrant democracy in the future'?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can confirm for my noble friend that we intend to increase the level of citizenship education in our schools. He will recognise that that is a long-drawn-out process. As he rightly said, we face a distinctly disturbing drop in public interest in current affairs programmes. Some may identify the problem as the quality of the programmes or some element of dumbing-down among broadcasters, a view that they would, of course, reject. It is within the Government's power to regulate news and factual information in the licensing system and, secondly, to increase citizenship opportunities for young people.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister began his Answer by underlining the importance of news services. Does he agree that much more would be known about politicians in Parliament if the news services generally reported what goes on in Parliament? Could that not be facilitated if Ministers—in another place, in particular—made a habit of always announcing all new policy initiatives inside the Chamber, so that the press would be there not only to hear them but to hear what Members of another place had to say about them? The public does not know that, at present.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that it is important that Parliament is reported adequately and that Parliament is the forum for the announcement and debate of government decisions. The noble Lord will recognise that the basis of the reforms to the working hours in another place—we have also made changes—is the need to ensure that debates take place at a time when it is more likely that news providers will be able to focus on them. Certainly it is the case that morning sittings and Prime Minister's Questions, as one illustration, taking place in the morning will aid the provision of news at lunch-time.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if I could pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about public demand, is that not dependent on the public having a sense that they are up-to-speed with what is going on up here, and is not the volume and complexity of legislation an enemy to that? More importantly, would the Minister accept that unless the public feel that Parliament is vulnerable to its own views and insights, it will never be interested in what we do? Is it not true that if, as is the case, the other place has not seen the Government defeated in a single vote since they came to power, that, of itself, creates a sense on the part of the ordinary person that their views are not worth expressing?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am tempted to apologise for the fact that the Government enjoy such a large majority in the House of Commons, if that is the kind of response which will keep Liberal Benches happy in the short term. Let me emphasise the obvious point. A great deal of what we do in Parliament is focused on the needs of the nation—not just legislation, but the debates that take place on the current issues of the day. It is regrettable that the way in which we have so organised ourselves in the past may have been such that, as far as news is concerned, debates have not always been at their most newsworthy.
I maintain that the reforming agenda is against the background of an awareness that we need to make our discussions and debates more newsworthy,
252
carried out at a time which reflects the news agenda of the media, and that is the basis on which we are now proceeding.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are in the tenth minute.

International Criminal Court
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to sign a bilateral immunity agreement with the United States on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have held preliminary discussions with the United States on the possibility of a bilateral agreement. We shall ensure that any agreement which emerges will be consistent with our obligations under the statute of the International Criminal Court and within the guiding principles agreed by the European Union Foreign Ministers on 30th September.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming that preliminary discussions have taken place. Will she also confirm my understanding that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they are, in principle, willing to sign a bilateral agreement with the United States? Can she also confirm that two staunch allies of the United States—Canada and the Netherlands—have made it clear that they are not willing, in principle, to sign an immunity agreement? Does she recognise that the praise that the Government have received from these Benches for pushing the Bush Administration on the multilateral route so far as Iraq is concerned, and for resisting those on the far reaches of the Right in Washington who wish to undermine international law and institutions, also causes us to question why Her Majesty's Government are not doing the same to uphold the principle of international law and international institutions on this other important principle?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are a number of states which have indicated willingness to sign up to bilateral agreements and a number which have indicated unwillingness. However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The fact is that the statute itself provides for that type of agreement under Article 98(2). Agreement, of course, has to be within specific circumstances. Under the article itself we are not moving outside the legislation in coming to that sort of bilateral agreement because that is the provision within the statute. Therefore, in making such agreements, it is important to ensure that the United

253
States is still able to form part of the important international peacekeeping forces. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I consider that an important ingredient in multilateralism in the world.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the provision was inserted into the statute at the insistence of the United States? Does she agree that over the past few years this country has built up enormous international respect, not least through its leadership in ensuring that those who commit horrific offences should be made accountable internationally? Would it not be a tragedy to squander that capital paying off the moral debts of the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts his point in tendentious terms. However the article came to be put in the legislation, the fact is that it was agreed. Nothing that we are discussing with the United States will move outside the guiding principles agreed with EU partners and we believe that that is enormously important in securing the United States' continued agreement to continue in the important multilateral forces which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We cannot keep going on the basis of deferrals, such as the one agreed in July, to protect the position of the United States. We need something far more solid than that, and we have a means of getting it.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister share my mild surprise at the criticism of the United States implicit in the remarks heard in this Chamber? Is it not the position that the United States is by far the biggest contributor to peacekeeping, providing the most personnel in the whole world? Those personnel inevitably are more exposed than any other to possibly politically motivated or malicious prosecutions. Should we not be doing everything we possibly can to retain the peacekeeping roles of America and to ensure that America continues to safeguard the stability of the international community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is precisely the point I have been making. We understand the anxieties that the United States has about the International Criminal Court. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right. The United States is an important part of peacekeeping forces around the world. We do not share the anxieties of the United States. We are full-blooded participants in having signed up to the International Criminal Court. The fact is that the reality of the United States, position has to be addressed. We believe that the United States is serious when it says that the absence of assurances in respect of the ICC will constrain its willingness to conduct military operations in support of foreign policy, such as the peacekeeping to which the noble
254
Lord referred. In those circumstances it is right and prudent to go along and progress the lines I have outlined.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords. does the Minister agree that any signing of a bilateral agreement by the UK would go a long way to weaken the moral strength and power of the International Criminal Court? Is it not sometimes appropriate to tell one's best friends that what they are doing is not particularly wise? Does she agree that the matter could be brought before the House of Lords again before the Government decide to sign the bilateral agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as we have discussed on a number of occasions, the fact is that the United Kingdom Government often take issue with the United States Government on a whole range of matters, not just the International Criminal Court—for example, the protocols around chemical and biological warfare and the important issue of capital punishment. We have taken issue over Kyoto. It is certainly not the case that the United Kingdom always agrees with the United States. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says that signing an agreement would weaken the International Criminal Court. I put it to the noble Baroness that we shall be far more weakened in relation to the multilateral basis on which we are trying to operate in the United Nations if we reach a position where the United States simply will not take part in peacekeeping forces. That would be a far worse position for us to be in.

Public Bills: Carry-Over
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to carry over public Bills from one parliamentary Session to another and what statutory authority this would require.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the fact that both Houses have agreed that it should be possible for public Bills to be "carried over" from one Session to the next, as is already the case with private and hybrid Bills. Both Houses are masters of their own procedures and the law and proceedings of Parliament are not, for the most part, underpinned by statute.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, is it not a fact that at the moment, following the decision in the other place two weeks ago, any public Bill in the Commons could be carried over for a further Session, whereas in your Lordships' Chamber that applies only to Bills that have had pre-legislative scrutiny? Is that not likely to lead to some confusion between the two Chambers? Is not the greater, more important point that, without any doubt, the power of this Chamber is seen in the other place as at its greatest in the last few

255
days of a Session when, rather than lose a Bill, a government will accept amendments because otherwise they fear that the Bill will disappear altogether? Is not that power likely to be put at risk by the changes that have just happened in Standing Orders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that to be true. I believe that both Houses are rightly scrutinising their own procedures. Of course, the procedures in the Commons are a matter for the Commons—I take the noble Lord's point—but my experience of this place is that it tends to be increasingly mulish if it feels that a government of any complexion are not paying proper attention to the fact that we have a legitimate role of scrutiny and revision. I hope that in the next year or two we will be able to renew ourselves, as the Commons are seeking to do, moving co-operatively with the other Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that no amount of pre-legislative scrutiny or carry-over makes up for the vast number of Bills that we currently see, often ill drafted and sometimes when Ministers are making up policy on the hoof? Secondly, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that there will be no carry-over in this House unless there has been pre-legislative scrutiny, and only when it has been agreed by Peers in all parties and of none in this Chamber?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, some legislation over the past years—I do not limit it to the period since 1997—has been voluminous and ill digested. The long-term solution to that is an increasing use of pre-legislative scrutiny.
The noble Lord is right in saying that we cannot have carry-over on a Bill in this Chamber unless this Chamber agrees it. That is a useful sanction which we all agreed knowing the consequences.
Lord Roper: My Lords, will the Lord Privy Seal also agree that the carry-over of any Bill if introduced initially in this House, irrespective of where it is at the end of the Session, will have to be agreed by this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thought I had said that, but, not being entirely familiar with English as a first language, I must have got it wrong.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government given any further thought to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that all Bills should have a 12-month life during which they have to pass, which is not tied arbitrarily to the end of a Session? Any Bill therefore not enacted within 12 months of introduction would lapse.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, making that suggestion and I said that I would consider it with the
256
Lord President in the other place. At present, we are moving forward in a period of change—I hope renewal—and plainly that suggestion needs to be attended to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord enlighten the House and tell us what is the role of the Parliament Act should a Bill be carried over? Can it still apply?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in some circumstances, yes.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Leader of the House will appreciate how grateful we are for the efforts he has made to bring about pre-legislative scrutiny of major Bills. Will he give the House an estimate of how quickly the difficulties of staffing pre-legislative scrutiny can be overtaken so that the House can assume that most major Bills will go to pre-legislative scrutiny within whatever period of years he can indicate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, during previous discussions, I said that this was a long-term ambition and the Lord President has reaffirmed that in the House of Commons. I ought to echo what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. The difficulty is often not a deficiency of resource in parliamentary drafting terms, because parliamentary counsel do admirable work and my noble and learned friend has applied extra resource to them and obtained extra numbers. Often—and I am whispering now—it is the fact that Ministers have not come to policy conclusions that is the difficulty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord, who is usually most forthcoming in his answers, be a little more expansive and say what circumstances will apply to the use of the Parliament Act on a Bill that is carried over and what will not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the Parliament Act is to bite, it could bite in some circumstances on a carry-over Bill. But that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, would depend as far as we are concerned to agreeing to carryover. It seems to me that whichever party is in government the power of this House to have its own way on carry-over is a very important check. That was, I understood, what your Lordships intended when we agreed on the new reforms.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, in reply to me the noble and learned Lord used the word "mulish" in reference to some of the amendments passed in your Lordships' House. As a former Chief Whip in the other place, I have sometimes shared that feeling. But does he not feel that, for example, the Animal Health Bill and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

257
left this Chamber a great deal better with our amendments than when they first came here from the other place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I used "mulish" as a term of approval. The mule is an admirable beast of burden, is patient and stubborn, persisting on very little by way of intake.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will thought be given to having more Clerks available for pre-legislative scrutiny? I sat on the Communications Bill and the Clerks were very much overburdened. In fact, a Clerk had to be changed in the middle of consideration of the Bill. If we are to carry out a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny, could thought be given to the matter so that we are serviced in the right way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a good point to which I know the House authorities have regard. They were able to be most flexible with the Communications Bill and we can proceed only if the resource is available. I remind myself that the mule is also incapable of reproduction, but that will not be a problem much longer.

Saville Inquiry
3.6 p.m
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
For how much longer the Saville inquiry is expected to last; how much it has cost to date; and what the final cost is estimated to be.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the inquiry has indicated that on current plans it expects to report during 2004. I pause for the hiss to be recorded. Up to the end of October 2002 the total cost of the inquiry to the Government was £93 million. It is estimated that the final cost will be £155 million, subject to the outcome of the judicial reviews of decisions on lawyers' fees.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I pause to get my breath back. Has the time not come for the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues to reflect on the fact that the inquiry is into events which took place more than 30 years ago; has cost £93 million (I was flabbergasted by the noble and learned Lord's figure); and has gone on for four years?
Despite what the noble and learned Lord the chairman has said, does not the Minister agree that this has come to look more like a trial every day, with the Army, already under very considerable pressures at this time, in the dock? I should hate to be impertinent, but I wonder whether the time has not
258
come when the noble and learned Lord the chairman would not be better employed performing his duties in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was a long time ago, but the allegations are of the utmost gravity. Whether the allegations are true ought to be determined. Part of the cost, which is large, is that those members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who served at that time, whether they are still serving or not, are entitled to have legal representation. It seems to me that what was said by Mr Hague, the then Leader of the Conservative Party, was right. He said:
"if the Prime Minister is personally satisfied—on the basis of the strong advice he has received—that genuine, fresh and compelling evidence has now been submitted which is significant enough to warrant the reopening of the inquiry, we shall accept his judgment".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 504.]
For my part, whatever the expense and whatever the consequences, I believe that the Prime Minister was right.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is something very wrong with a peace process which since 1998 has spent all that money on a single event in which 13 people sadly died—and I take his point about its importance—but has allocated only £18.25 million over the same period to the needs of victims? Most of the money has gone to initiatives, strategies and programmes, but does not the Minister believe that as we are dealing with a peace and healing process some of it might have been used to deal with and address the violence from the paramilitaries on the streets? That seems to me to be just as important as the issue he has raised.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in that both issues are important. But it is a false opposition to suggest that an inquiry might to be under-funded in order for other worthy purposes to be achieved. Very substantial public resource is devoted to the problems of paramilitary violence a l the moment, as the noble Baroness knows.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a more general point is at issue here—namely, that it is not only this inquiry that has cost a lot of money? There have been other protracted and costly inquiries. Is it not time that the Government set up one of their favourite task forces—preferably not under a lawyer—to look at how such inquiries can be expedited, rather than to continue going about these things in the conventional way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. It is a question of the structure of any inquiry and whether it should be more of an inquisition rather than an adversarial proceeding. Certainly I have taken part in an inquiry which was largely inquisitorial and was able to report relatively inexpensively and fairly promptly.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I admit that I spoke against the opening of this inquiry. At that time I was

259
a Member of the Back Benches. I certainly go along with my former leader in another place, William Hague. Does the Leader of the House agree that in the context of all the tragedies which have taken place over 30 years—the number of people who have been killed, the soldiers who have been murdered, the civilians who have been slaughtered—in the name of terrorism and the unification of Ireland, to spend this amount of money on a continuing sore which must be, and can only be, working from one side to the other to aggravate against the peace process, is not sensible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that it is working, ultimately, to the detriment of the peace process. These are, I repeat, serious allegations of criminal activity against servants of the Crown. If wrong-doing occurred, it must be exposed. If wrong-doing did not occur, that must be explained also. Those against whom allegations are made are entitled to their representation and to their day.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, given that many of the key witnesses to events being examined by the Saville inquiry are either very old or deceased, how confident is the noble and learned Lord that an accurate conclusion can be arrived at? Is not the inquiry another down-payment—today we have heard that it will cost £155 million of taxpayers' money—in return for Sinn Fein/IRA's limited engagement in the Northern Ireland political process?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the nature of things, many of the witnesses will be old and some of them are dead. This is a common experience which judges meet from time to time. The three members of the tribunal are eminent judges who will have to set those issues in their context. But, of course, we have film from the time, we have journalists' recollections at the time and we have many sources of live, direct evidence. It is a matter for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his judicial colleagues to weigh all the evidence and to come to their judicial and judicious conclusion.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord remind the House of the cost estimate when this long legal journey was embarked upon?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if there was one, I do not know what it was. But my experience is that any estimate of legal costs is normally inadequate.

Parole
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should say that my Question inquired whether there was a practice rather than assuming that there is one.
The Question was as follows:
260
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that there should be a change in the practice which leads a prisoner, who consistently maintains that he is innocent of the offence for which he has been convicted, to prejudice his prospects of being released on parole.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clarification.
There is no rule or policy which prevents a prisoner who denies guilt from progressing through the system or from being released on parole licence. Such prisoners may be granted parole if their risk is assessed as having reduced to a level which is compatible with the protection of public safety.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, instead of the fulsome praise that one normally accords to an Answer, perhaps the Minister will allow me to express my gratitude at being the first Member of the House to be allowed to ask the first fifth Question. Although it was achieved by ballot, I suspect that it may have had something to do with alphabetical merit.
Can the Minister inform the House when the unfortunate Mr Robert Brown—whose conviction was quashed very recently, he having served 25 years in prison—might have been released but for the fact that the Criminal Cases Review Commission stepped in and referred the case to the Court of Appeal? Apparently his request for parole was refused some 14 years ago.
Secondly, is the Minister aware that, apart from the human suffering of spending another 14 years in prison, the sheer financial cost of the Home Office's inflexible policy in regard to this man involved some £500,000 for those 14 years and, no doubt, will cost something of that nature by way of compensation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on being the first asker of a fifth Question. The fact that noble Lords are leaving the Chamber at the moment is not a comment on the quality of his Question.
As to the serious question about the position of Mr Brown, he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1977. There were seven parole hearings in relation to his case. The first took place in June 1984, the second in December 1988, and I shall write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with the dates of the other hearings. On each occasion the issue raised was not whether he denied guilt in relation to the crime of which he had been convicted in 1977, but what risk did he pose. That was the issue addressed by each of the seven parole hearings.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in view of the concerns about this case, can the Minister assure the

261
House that a thorough review of the parole system will be undertaken to ensure that none of the suggestions outlined in the Question applies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should make it clear to the noble Lord that the position is as described in the Parole Board's annual review for the year 2000–01, which indicated that denial of guilt is not a reason for refusing people parole. The review said that such a policy would be unlawful. It stated:
"The courts have been consistently clear that the Board has to work on the basis that a prisoner applying for parole has been properly convicted. It can place no credence in a denial of guilt … the Board's role is to make an assessment of the risk of the prisoner reoffending if released".
That is the approach that has been taken.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not correct that when the Parole Board takes a judgment in such matters, the assumption is made that the man was guilty of the offence. In coming to that conclusion, does it also consider the fact that he has never apologised or in any way expressed any regret for the act that he is alleged to have committed? So when the Minister states that the matter is not considered, obliquely it is considered, is it not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is an element of truth in what the noble Lord says in this sense: the issue is one of risk. All the circumstances may be taken into account; but the myth that one is seeking to get rid of is the idea that, if one denies one's guilt in relation to a crime, it automatically follows that one will not receive parole. That is not the position. The approach taken by the Parole Board is one of assessing risk. The board assumes that the defendant has committed the crime of which he has been convicted—because there is no other realistic basis on which it can approach the matter.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend saying, in other words, that the press reports were totally wrong?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am loath to comment on detailed press reports. If and in so far as it has been said that because the defendant denied guilt for his crime he was thereby automatically denied parole, that is wrong. 'That is not a lawful approach, and it is not the approach taken by the Parole Board.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is it fair to ask whether that aspect is taken into account? There is a widespread view that that is the situation. I suggest that it is probable that people would take it into account. In the light of what the Minister has said, is there an argument for stating that it is in no way to be taken into account and that it is, therefore, not a matter for discussion on these occasions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, got it broadly right. Of course it could be a relevant matter. If one is denying one's guilt and one is not participating in any programme that seeks, for example, to try to deal with the behaviour that might have led to the crime, that could be a relevant factor in relation to risk. But the important point to address is this: if a person denies the crime of which he has been convicted and is thereby never granted parole, that is not the right approach.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to Home Office Research Study 202, the way in which the Parole Board deals with the problem outlined is by ensuring that the prisoner has undertaken a number of offending behaviour programmes? Such programmes are often not available for months; therefore, prisoners who are eligible for parole in every other respect are kept in prison because of the scarcity of prison service programmes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, it comes down to the question of what is the level of risk for an individual prisoner or defendant. If in order to reduce that risk certain programmes have to be gone through and there are shortages in relation to those programmes, that is not a desirable position. However, there is a balance to be struck between the protection of the public on the one hand and the availability of the programmes. Ultimately, the protection of the public has to come first.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is not the position this: the prisoner is looked upon as adding to the risk automatically if he is released if he has not in the eyes of the Parole Board "addressed the offence'? He has not shown contrition. He has not admitted that he is the person who was properly convicted. Therefore, it is taken into account to that extent—how seriously that is done no doubt varies from case to case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have accepted that it could be a relevant matter if and in so far as it bears on risk. If a defendant persistently denies his guilt and refuses to take part in any programmes designed to address his offending behaviour, that could plainly bear on the issue of risk. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, rightly said, that could have an effect on the outcome. But the critical point to make clear is that if a person denies his guilt it does not follow automatically that he will not be granted parole.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on reforming the law on sexual offences and sexual offenders.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for furthering co-operation with other countries in respect of criminal proceedings and investigations; to extend jurisdiction to deal with terrorist acts or threats outside the United Kingdom; to amend Section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981; and to make corresponding provision in relation to Scotland and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Wild Mammals (Protection)(Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Donoughue.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a committee of inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with so far as is necessary on 25th November next to enable the Motion standing in my name to be taken before the Second Reading of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, a noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak on the Motion on the European Union
264
Committee. I shall, therefore, move the first two Motions in my name separately. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Acton,

L. Elton,

L. Fellowes,

B. Gould of Potternewton,

L. Holme of Cheltenham,

B. Howells of St Davids,

L. Jauncey of Tullichettle,

L. Lang of Monkton,

L. MacGregor of Pulham Market,

E. Mar and Kellie,

L. Morgan,

L. Norton of Louth (Chairman);

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Constitution Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union.
That the expression "European Union documents"" shall include the following documents:

(i) Any proposal under the Community treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

265

(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

B. Billingham,

L. Brennan,

L. Cavendish of Furness,

L. Dubs,

L. Grenfell (Chairman),

L. Hannay of Chiswick,

B. Harris of Richmond,

L. Jopling,

L. Lamont of Lerwick,

B. Maddock,

L. Neill of Bladen,

B. Park of Monmouth,

L. Radice,

L. Scott of Foscote,

E. Selborne,

B. Stern,

L. Williamson of Horton,

L. Woolmer of Leeds;

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such subcommittees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Union Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I seek some clarification from the chairman of the European Union Committee. Is it possible for him to draw the line between material that goes, or should go, before the committee and material that bypasses the committee and goes directly to Ministers?
The position at present is that material by passes even the Minister himself and goes directly from the European Commission to the ministry concerned. As a result, last year, about 2,000 items were placed directly on to the statute book without any ministerial control at all. They were merely subject to the say-so of whichever senior or semi-senior civil servant was dealing with the matter. I am sure the: House will agree that clarification is required.
I suggest that it is desirable that the chairman of the European Union Committee should give some indication as to how far his writ or that of his committee runs, as to whether or not the decisions of his committee can be taken as a licence for matters to go straightaway into British law, and where the dividing lines are.
In view of the importance of European legislation and the fact that it is now entering into very mixed fields, I suggest that the conditions proposed for the European Union Select Committee are examined in much greater detail in order that there may be a delineation of powers as between the Government and the committee itself.
Lord Renton: My Lords, lest it should be thought that the proposal put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has no support, I want warmly to endorse what he said. If we are to have a European Union Committee, the views that he has expressed should be recognised.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in further support of what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, can I ask the Chairman of Committees how the sift works nowadays? It is not clear from the Order Paper. When I had the privilege of serving on your Lordships' European Select Committee, the chairman of the committee used to sit down with the Clerk once a week to go through the many hundreds of documents that Brussels had deposited in the Foreign Office that week. They would decide which ones were to be examined by the various committees. The result of that sift was put before the whole Select Committee. One member of the committee might realise that a document that needed the scrutiny of a particular committee had slipped through. What is the system now? I and many other noble Lords would support a system whereby all

267
members of the Select Committee and the sub-committees for each subject area check the sift to ensure that nothing that requires your Lordships' closer attention has slipped through.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am no longer the chairman of the European Union Committee. If this Motion is agreed to, the role will be assumed by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I wish him well in his task. I very much enjoyed the 18 months during which I did the job.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised what is popularly known as comitology, an issue not widely understood by noble Lords or anyone else. I can tell noble Lords that the European Union Committee is conducting a review of its role, as proposed by the Leader's group. We were unable to complete that review before the end of the Session, but it is well under way. This subject is among those covered in the review. So, too, is scrutiny, and how it is carried out. I have little doubt that the review will be published fairly shortly, and it will almost certainly be debated in this House in due course, subject, as usual, to agreement through the usual channels. I have no doubt that that will be the best time for the issues to be raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Rannoch, asked about the sift. The sift is conducted—certainly this was the case when I did it—as it always has been. The whole point of the sift is to reduce the amount of paper so that everything is not required to go before the Select Committee or, even worse, before all the sub-committees also. The detailed result of the sift is published fortnightly. So anyone can see exactly what has happened to any given document. I hope that that answers the questions raised, which are not strictly related to the membership of the committee anyway. I urge noble Lords to reserve their fire for the time when the review is published and debated. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the five remaining Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to supervise the general administration of the House and guide the work of the Management Board; to agree the
268
annual estimates, supplementary estimates and the three-year spending forecasts; to approve the House of Lords annual report; and to approve changes in employment policy;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee;

L. Barnett,

L. Burlison,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Hunt of Wirral,

L. Lloyd of Berwick,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Strathclyde,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal);

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the law relating to religious offences;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Avebury,

L. Bhatia,

L. Clarke of Hampstead,

V. Colville of Culross (Chairman),

L. Grabiner,

L. Griffiths of Fforestfach,

E. Mar and Kellie,

B. Massey of Darwen,

B. Perry of Southwark,

Bp. Portsmouth,

B. Richardson of Calow,

B. Wilcox;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Religious Offences Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

B. Finlay of Llandaff,

L. Lewis of Newnham,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Methuen,

L. Mitchell,

L. Oxburgh (Chairman),

L. Patel,

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Turnberg,

L. Wade of Chorlton,

B. Walmsley,

269

B. Warwick of Undercliffe,

L. Winston,

L. Young of Graffitam;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
Moved, pursuant to Standing Order 74 and the resolution of the House of 16th December 1997, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Greenway,

L. Hardy of Wath,

L. Lea of Crondall,

E. Russell,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Vivian.

Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Ampthill,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Carter,

L. Cope of Berkeley,

B. Cox,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Elton,

B. Fookes,

L. Geddes,

B. Gould of Potternewton,

L. Grocott,

L. Haskel,

L. Hogg of Cumbernauld,

B. Hooper,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

C. Mar,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

V. Oxfuird,

270

B. Pitkeathley,

B. Ramsay of Cartvale,

V. Simon,

L. Skelmersdale,

B. Thomas of Walliswood,

L. Tordoff,

B. Turner of Camden.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.34 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Baroness Turner of Camden—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, in 1997, the welfare system paid too many people a fortnightly giro cheque but did little to help them back to work. Social security has always been a big spender. In 1979, it took one penny ill five of government spending. In 1997, it had become one penny in three. If benefit moneys could have solved the problem of poverty, poverty should have been significantly reduced in 1997. Instead, one in five households were out of work. We spent a lot of money keeping people poor—a system disliked as much by those who depend on it as by those paying for it.
We want a fairer, more inclusive society. For that, we must tackle both poverty of income and poverty of life chances. Therefore, we seek first to tackle the poverty of those of working age, who are poor primarily because they are out of work, and, if they are lone parents and in fractured families, the child poverty that follows. Secondly, we want to tackle pensioner poverty, today and for the future. Many pensioners are poor, especially older widows, with little independent provision. A second problem is those who are in work but who are relatively poor. who are not building up pension provision and therefore comport their poverty into their old age.
We are making progress. The number of people in work is now at record levels. Employment has risen by more than 1.5 million since 1997 to more than 27.7 million. Unemployment has fallen by more than half a million and is at its lowest level for 25 years. With the help of the New Deal programme, long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated and longterm claimant unemployment has fallen by around three-quarters to its lowest level for over 25 years. By

271
rolling out Jobcentre Plus nationwide, we expect an extra 2 million people by 2006 to benefit from personal interviews and work-focused support.
Disadvantaged and marginalised groups have started to share this success. The lone parent employment rate has increased from 45.6 per cent to 53.6 per cent. However, we want to see further improvements, particularly among people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people; in other words, people who are economically inactive as opposed to unemployed. So we will continue to tackle discrimination in all its forms, ensuring that every citizen enjoys their civil rights. We are also making good progress towards our target to reduce by a quarter, by 2004, the number of children in low-income households. We are a third of the way there after a third of the time. New tax credits and reform of the Child Support Agency will ensure that more—substantially more—money will go to our poorest children. As a result of our measures, including pension credit, the average pensioner household will be over £20 per week, or £1,150 a year, better off in real terms compared with 1997.
Raising incomes through increasing opportunities to work and tax and benefit reform is a central component of any anti-poverty strategy. But it is not the whole solution. Poverty is about life chances as well as low income. The quality of key public services has a vital effect on the well-being of many people. Health along with education defines those life chances. I shall give just two examples. First, a quarter of lone parents do not work. The reason they give us is that they have a limiting health condition. They need welfare to health as much as they need welfare to work.
The second example is that of older people, mainly men and mainly manual workers, who are on longterm disability benefits in the decade before retirement. They are willing to work, failing to work and becoming progressively poorer and as a result in progressively poorer health. We know that people who are suffering poverty or social exclusion are more likely to suffer poor health and to encounter poor services. So we now have national targets for reducing inequality in health—to reduce infant mortality, to close the gap in life expectancy and to reduce teenage pregnancy—the health inequalities that exist between people and between communities, about which I am sure my noble friend will speak much more when he makes his winding-up speech tonight.
In 1997 the Government set out on a programme of modernisation of health and social care services designed to redesign services around the user of those services, and to free up front-line staff to provide such services in line with local needs. We have committed ourselves to a wide ranging set of national standards, as set out in the NHS Plan and in national service frameworks, to ensure that all patients know what service they are entitled to receive and all front-line staff know what standards they are expected to meet. We established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to ensure uniformly high standards right across the country.
272
We have committed high and sustained increases in funding to support these standards, but investment has been accompanied by reform. Increases in funding have been accompanied by radical reform of the service delivery structures to ensure a focus on delivery and on the patient. From the first, we recognised the importance of giving power to front-line services by introducing a new focus for local delivery—the primary care trust. Under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, primary care trusts were given more power and resources alongside new responsibilities. From April 2003, over 75 per cent of all NHS expenditure will be in the hands of primary care trusts, run by front-line doctors, nurses, and other health professionals who are better informed about patients' needs and, therefore, better placed to commission and deliver effective services. We are beginning to see results.
In 2000–01 the NHS delivered 25,000 coronary artery bypass grafts—an increase of almost 10 per cent on 1996–97; 110,000 hip and knee replacements—an increase of 20 per cent on 1996–97; and 245,000 cataract removals—an increase of over 50 per cent on 1996–97.
We met our pledge to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 in our first term and waiting times are reducing. Between June 2001 and June 2002 the number of outpatients waiting 13 weeks to see a hospital specialist fell by almost one-third; that is to say, by 114,000. The number waiting over 26 weeks fell from 85,000 to just over 1,000 in the same period. Between August 2001 and August 2002 the number of inpatients waiting more than 15 months for treatment fell from 10,900 to just 32.
The NHS is working to reduce working times further so that by the end of March 2003 the maximum waiting time for an inpatient appointment will he cut to 12 months; the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will be cut to 21 weeks. In addition, maximum waiting times will continue to fall year on year so that by the end of 2005 the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment will be cut to six months and the maximum wait for a first out-patient appointment will be cut to 13 weeks.
Therefore, by the end of 2005, traditional waiting times for all hospital admissions and appointments in all NHS trusts will be replaced with booking systems, which will allow patients to pre-book hospital appointments that are convenient for them. The Government's programme of investment and reform is, therefore, bearing fruit and delivering significant improvements in access to care for the people of this country. We know that there remains plenty to do; but we are getting there.
I turn to pensioners, who make substantial use of both the benefit and the health system. Adults who are unable to build a decent pension because they are not in work risk—on could almost certainly predict—poverty in later life. On average, older people who have already retired are much better off than was the case 20 years ago. Average net income before housing costs was £119 in 1979 and £195 in 1996–97. However,

273
during that time, the income gap between rich and poor pensioners widened. The poorest couples' income between 1979 and 1997 grew by approximately one-third, 34 per cent, compared with 80 per cent for the richest—the top Fifth. And the difference was due to occupational pensions and private savings.
Our first priority was to tackle the gap between the poorest and the richest pensioners. MIG (the minimum income guarantee) uprated by earnings during this Parliament will ensure that more pensioners are able to share in rising national prosperity. Around 2 million pensioners currently benefit. From April 2002, a single pensioner is al. least £15 a week better off in real terms than in 1997, as a result of MIG rises.
The basic state pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement. It currently stands at £75.50 a week for single pensioners and at £120.70 a week for couples. For the past two years we have increased the basic pension by rates greater than inflation, and it is set to increase by 2.5 per cent, or the RPI, whichever is greater, in future. So we are narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor: we are getting there. But we need to do more.
Hence the state retirement pension is supported by the state second pension, which, as noble Lords will know, reforms SERPS for those unable to afford private occupational pensions. Low earners will get at least double what they would have got from SERPS; it is heavily redistributive to the poorest. And people can now also build up a second tier pension during periods where they have lost their links with the labour market because of caring responsibilities, or have a long term disability. Therefore. as with the minimum income guarantee, so with the state second pension: the primary gainers are women.
From October 2003, the groundbreaking pension credit means that for the first time we will reward, not penalise, modest savings. As well as a guaranteed level of income below which no pensioner should fall—this should be around £100 in 2003 for single pensioners and £154 for couples—the pension credit introduces a savings credit. Savings will no longer lead to the pound-for-pound reduction in income related benefits such as MIG. Pension credit will signal the end of the weekly means test. Around 45 per cent of all pensioner households will stand to gain. Small savings and small pensions will be worth having. When one remembers that the average pension pot is about £20,000 to £25,000 and that nearly half of them are under £10,000, one realises that because we have a decent level of MIG the small savings of too many pensioners have been wiped off in offsetting. That will no longer be the case with pension credit: they stand to gain.
Stakeholder pensions were introduced to provide a low-charge funded option for those who do not have access to an occupational scheme or good value personal pension. They now have the chance to save for a decent income in retirement. Now, some 18 months later, over 1 million stakeholder pensions have been sold. MIG, S2P, pension credit, and stakeholder pensions all target the poorest off; in other words, they
274
rightly target disproportionately and benefit women. We have indeed responded to the needs both of those pensioners who are poor now, as well as those who face an otherwise impoverished retirement.
However, we need to do more: hence our forthcoming Green Paper. We need to reinvigorate the pensions partnership between government, individuals, employers, and the financial services industry. We need to ensure that people can invest with confidence, and that more employers offer pension schemes that meet their employees' needs. Individuals need decent choices and the information required to decide between them.
Finally, I turn to the two health Bills outlined in the gracious Speech. In this Session, my noble friend will introduce—
Lord Fowler: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness before she moves on. She made the case for encouraging pension provision, but can she say how introducing the £5 billion pension tax actually fits into that strategy of encouraging pension provision?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a decision, which was entirely correct; namely, that pension provision should not be distorted by a retention tax—an ACT tax. Instead of investing in research and development, companies chose to pay out that money in dividends. Had companies made such investment throughout the 1990s, they might be in a healthier position now. The Chancellor corrected that anomaly, and the benefits can be clearly seen when we look at the current healthy state of the economy compared to that of most of our competitors.
As I said, the gracious Speech mentioned two health Bills. In this Session, we shall introduce a Bill to continue the process of modernising the delivery of healthcare based firmly on the founding principles of the NHS. The Health and Social Care Reform Bill would enable NHS foundation trusts to be created to free hospitals from Whitehall control, starting with the best performers. NHS foundation trusts will be set up as new public interest organisations accountable to local people.
Drawing from the examples of co-operative societies and mutual organisations in Britain and abroad, NHS foundation hospitals would be fully independent of Whitehall control, working for NHS patients and the public interest. They will be governed by a stakeholder council elected by members of the local community and NHS staff, and free to borrow from either private or public lenders up to a prudential limit established by the regulator based on their ability to service the borrowing.
Foundation hospitals will be at the cutting edge of the Government's wider reform programme for the public services. They will provide a new alternative to either monolithic healthcare provision, on the one hand, or shareholder-led for-profit provision on the other. The changes will support innovation and generate a new culture of public service enterprise.

275
The Bill will also establish a new inspectorate for the NHS, independent of the Department of Health, to assess performance and enforce standards. A similar inspectorate will be set up for social services. These will strengthen accountability and transparency between the health and social care services and the public who pay for them.
I turn to the second Bill. We have already introduced the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill to bring an end to delays in the discharge of patients from hospital and to ensure that older people receive the right care in the right place at the right time. There are currently about 5,000 delayed discharges throughout the acute sector of the NHS on any given day. These delays are bad for the mainly elderly people who are affected by them and denied the support that they want and need. They are bad for the whole NHS as they take up resources which could be spent on providing direct patient care.
We have committed ourselves to increased funding for older people's services to guarantee faster access to a range of services and greater choice, amounting to an extra £1 billion annually by 2006. For many councils, however, the current system does not provide sufficient incentive to invest in the community services necessary to reduce delayed discharge. This Bill will provide a strong financial incentive for local authorities to use the additional funding to extend capacity. If a patient is delayed in hospital after he has been declared ready for discharge, local authorities will be required to reimburse the acute hospital for the cost of that person's bed, board and any personal care that he requires.
We are investing in our services and investing in our people. We are tackling the poverty of income, the poverty of life chances and education and above all—the poverty of health which for too long have scarred our society. I am proud to draw the Government's achievements to the attention of the House.
3.52 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the beginning of a new Session of Parliament brings with it a sense of anticipation and, one hopes, a renewal of energy for the hidden delights that lie ahead. By its very nature, it is one of the watersheds of the parliamentary year, and hence a good time to take stock—which is why, unlike some, I positively welcome the debate on the gracious Speech as an opportunity to look at the broad sweep of government policy and government performance. This Labour Government have been in office for five and a half years. That is long enough for their achievements, or the lack of them, to be assessed with reasonable objectivity. By the same token, it is more than long enough to prevent Ministers, with any shred of plausibility, blaming the previous administration for whatever might be wrong with our national life. Of course, it is not impossible that in times of desperation they will continue trying.
276
So far as health is concerned, one thing of which we cannot accuse the Government is inactivity. Indeed, the past five years in the health service have been nothing if not brim full of reorganisation and change. So much so that, for some of us, life simply would not be the same without a major Bill each year reorganising one aspect or another of the NHS. This year—heaven be praised—is no exception to the rule. The effect has been one of frenetic activity and upheaval, all in the cause of that marvellous, seductive-sounding and all-purpose objective "modernisation". Modernisation is a word which, as in the language of Humpty-Dumpty, means whatever the Government choose it to mean. To that extent, it allows Ministers to claim success for whatever they happen to have done, however ghastly. Of course, it is another matter entirely whether all this relentless activity has actually improved the health service or made life better for patients.
I remember how, in 1997, the health service reforms initiated by the previous Conservative administration were lambasted by the incoming Government. GP fundholding, in particular, came in for enormous criticism on two grounds: the first being its bureaucratic cost, and the second its supposed tendency to create a two-tier health service. I think that there was a valid basis for criticism on the first count; but the second count was in large measure manufactured and overdone.
I raise the topic again not to rake over past battles, but to make a slightly wider point. Whatever one may have thought of the particular elements of the Conservative reforms—and I know only too well that the Minister did not like them—their objective was quite clear. It was to try to respond to two inescapable trends in healthcare: the increasing need for patients to feel empowered and to have choice; and the well-founded pressure on politicians to devolve to a local level the decision making about commissioning, about healthcare priorities and about looking after patients. The formation of NHS acute trusts was a means of creating autonomy at a local level, with matching accountability for money spent. The internal market, notwithstanding its adverse features, was designed not as an end in itself, but as a means of achieving the wider objectives of choice, autonomy and better treatment.
It was, however, not only the detail of Conservative policy that was repudiated by Labour; it was the wider objectives as well. When the idea of increased patient choice was put to the Prime Minister quite early on in the new administration, it was greeted with blank incomprehension. I remember the bile with which a certain Minister greeted my suggestion, in 1998, that there was a place for healthy competition in delivering healthcare. The Conservative aim of giving doctors greater power to decide what was best for their patients has been systematically undermined and frustrated by the entire sweep of the Government's reforms during their first five years in office. Instead of flexibility and local innovation, the Government introduced rigidities in the purchasing of services, poked into life by a combination of carrots and sticks from the centre.

277
We may exchange banter in this Chamber about control from the centre and "getting the balance right", but the reality is that never has there been a Government more intent than this one on issuing directions, instructions, targets, initiatives, implementation plans, protocols, and guidance, clinical and non-clinical, to all segments of the health service. It is a syndrome described by the King's Fund as "relentless, almost hyperactive intervention". The NHS implementation plan for 2003–06 contains 186 separate targets—although I have to say that it is quite easy to lose count.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is my noble friend not being excessively modest? Is it not plain that, having repudiated the internal market and the whole idea of devolving power, and having smashed up what was put in place, the Government, as he said, are busily trying to reinvent it with the proposals for fundholding foundation hospitals? Has not my noble friend won the argument, and have not patients lost out because of the confusion on the government Benches over the past Five years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as is often the case, my noble friend is ahead of me. I shall come to make that point in a moment.
No one doubts the worthy intentions behind the Government's approach. We know that the Government want to make life better for patients. The effect, however, has been little short of disastrous. What you achieve when you keep telling professional people how they must do things is to demoralise them. Morale in the health service is, by common consent, at rock bottom. You cannot make the NHS attractive to professional people unless you give them job satisfaction. They have to feel that they can exercise their professional skills without constantly being second-guessed from outside and being managed to do what is not in the best interests of their patients.
The reason why the consultants voted the other day against the proposed new contract is that trust between doctors and government is now practically nonexistent. They feel deprofessionalised. The reason why there are still 20,000 nursing vacancies is that fewer nurses nowadays want to work for the NHS. A third of new graduate nurses are not registering to practise. More and more GPs are retiring early to escape the burden of red tape and paperwork imposed by government. Junior doctors who have trained to be GPs are deciding in greater numbers to avoid general practice altogether. Doctors now work in what a leading academic recently described as a "macho-management culture". It is the culture of the health service which this Government have damaged, and that is the supreme irony when we know how precious the NHS ethos of public service is to Labour Ministers.
That is why the Department of Health is not achieving the targets for recruitment of consultants, GPs, nurses and midwives. Meanwhile, the Government, who are pouring money into the health service, are getting less and less from every pound they put in. In fact, visible evidence of the new money, as
278
the King's Fund has observed, is hard to find. The Government's obsession with bringing down the waiting list numbers and setting targets for A&E waits and setting more targets for urgent cancer waits has resulted in the well-known squeezed balloon effect. You reduce the problem in one area but you inflate it in another. Long-term waits for elective surgery have come down—that is a good thing—but it is doubtful whether elective surgery as a whole has seen any increase in activity. All that has happened is that more and more people are now waiting between six and 12 months, and the capacity problem remains as it was.
Cancer patients deemed as urgent may he seeing a consultant within two weeks, but other patients, who may have life threatening forms of cancer, are, as a result, suffering unacceptable and sometimes critical delays. Maximum waiting times for cancer and heart disease, fine in their intention, have the effect of demoting other, less high profile conditions down the list of clinical priorities. As one consultant anaesthetist graphically put it the other day, "If you don't have a vote-winning illness, then sod you".
And sad to say, the distortions of clinical practice brought about by government interference are in evidence throughout the health service. The orthopaedic department of St George's Hospital is told to stop accepting out-of-area emergencies in order that the targets on routine elective cases can be met. Waits in A&E in many hospitals are getting worse because there are not any beds on the wards. There are no beds for these emergency cases because elective surgery, at the behest of Ministers, has taken priority. So, in an effort to free up beds, patients are discharged too early. The result of that is that the number of emergency readmissions to hospital has risen sharply. That in turn can lead to cancelled operations, the number of which has shot up. Beds are in short supply because they are blocked by elderly patients with nowhere to go. Why do they have nowhere to go? It is because, thanks to the Government's well-intentioned but misguided drive to regulate care homes, there is now a drastic shortage of capacity in intermediary care. None of us can condone the practice of fiddling the waiting time figures but it is no wonder that this has been happening when managers have found themselves utterly unable to fulfil the mutually conflicting imperatives being thrust upon them by Whitehall. It is often the sickest patients who suffer.
We look around to see where the money has gone. Labour's manifesto in 1997 promised to cut the bureaucratic costs of the NHS and to direct the first £100 million saved into treating 100,000 extra patients. What we have actually seen since the Government came to office is not a fall but a rise in administration costs. Taking the latest departmental report as our guide, we see that costs anticipated for 2003–04 are likely to be £100 million up on those for 1997–98—a rise of some 40 per cent. So many administrators. have been appointed in the NHS since 1997 that we are now in the extraordinary situation where, for the first time, there are more administrators in the NHS than there are beds.

279
The Minister should not get me wrong. My purpose is not to belittle or rubbish every single initiative the Government have taken since they took office. Some, of course, have been positive. But having in 1997 reversed the direction of travel taken by the Conservatives in the sense that I have indicated, they have, it seems to me, taken the health service in the wrong direction for the better part of five years, and the NHS and patients have been the clear losers. It is only with the announcement of foundation hospitals in the gracious Speech that we see a welcome reversal of what has gone before. We hear a return of the language of choice, diversity of provision, professional autonomy and local ownership. We again hear about money following the patient. There is still much in the way of detail that we do not yet know but I say to the Minister that this is a new development in health policy which we find very welcome. It is time for the centre to let go.
If I have a criticism of foundation trusts as so far announced, it is that they are not to be rolled out more widely. Only three-star performers will be eligible for foundation status. But, as Gill Morgan of the NHS Confederation has observed, the very time when organisations need the most freedom to innovate is when they have been performing poorly. If devolution to front-line staff is a good thing, then more front-line staff should have the benefit of it. To contemplate only a handful of foundation hospitals, with freedom to borrow and expand, really does imply a two-tier health service to a degree that dwarfs anything that may have ensued from Conservative health policies. There are obvious questions about governance arrangements. But the real question about foundation status is the nature and extent of the freedoms to be accorded to them. Freedom means not simply "freedom to", but "freedom from". How much external monitoring and performance management will they remain subject to? How many restrictions will be placed on them by the financial regulator?
One issue of particular concern is pay. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us the extent to which foundation trusts will be able to determine their own levels of pay. Many people see a danger in staff being siphoned away from non-foundation hospitals and recruitment difficulties thereby being exacerbated. Freedom to set pay and to borrow is desirable but if foundation status is not extended more widely, the repercussions could be serious.
The measures to establish the commission for healthcare audit and inspection and the commission for social care inspection are, again, broadly welcome to us. Indeed, as the Minister knows, we have long argued for a rationalisation of the various health inspectorates. I put down only one marker at this stage, and it is a marker called "independence". We shall look very carefully at how CHAI in particular is legally constituted and the degree to which it is free not simply in managerial terms but also in terms of its budget.
280
It is a shame not to be able to end my speech with a welcome for the remaining NHS measure announced last week, but I cannot. The delayed discharges Bill is, to my mind, an idea that is wholly misconceived. The root cause of bed blocking is not any lack of cooperation between hospitals and social services, it is the loss since 1997 of 60,000 places in care homes—a loss both caused and acquiesced in by the present Government. Fining local authorities for something over which they have little, if any, control is simply to deprive them of the very resources they need for care home residents. Far from stabilising services, it will destabilise them. Far from cementing local partnerships, it will undermine them. But worst of all perhaps, it will bring with it the inevitable consequence of such artificial mechanisms—the perverse incentive. All of a sudden, a GP trying to find a care home place for a patient need only refer that patient to hospital to ensure that a place is found. Independent care home providers looking for fee rises will see local authorities under the threat of fines as an easy target for such rises. To place such undue emphasis on hospital discharges will mean that those waiting for help from social services at home may well be disadvantaged.
The Local Government Association has condemned those proposals as,
"costly, unworkable and based on a flawed analysis of the real problems".
That is the position in a nutshell, and it is why I fear that the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House will not be an easy one.
I started my speech by referring to the hidden delights of the coming Session. It is a Session which, in so far as it relates to health and social services, shows every sign of being as lively and as intense as any that I can remember. On these Benches, we stand ready to ensure that the House continues to hold Ministers to account fully, systematically and in detail, in their pursuit of the radical proposals outlined today.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too. welcome the new parliamentary Session, although it has clearly started in the same old way. In the debate on the Queen's Speech in the other place, the Secretary of State for Health insulted everyone left right—and particularly—centre; we have the general bandying about of statistics without hard evidence of progress; and we still have huge capacity problems.
It appears that it is unlikely that the 2004 targets—of 7,500 more consultants and 2,000 more GPs—will be met. The total numbers applying to medical school, even with the prospect of five more medical schools, appear to be dropping fast and will, it seems. be too low to meet the 2008 target of 15,000 more doctors. Moreover, what new money there is does not appear to be reaching where it should. Cancer treatment and research and hospice care are just a few examples. Targets for accident and emergency waits are not being met. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State and Mr Nigel Crisp play a "bad cop, good cop" routine with NHS staff. The Prime Minister gave a worthy interview to the Health Service Journal on the state of the NHS and

281
promised further modernisation of the health service. Then, lo—just to add to our pleasure—we had the announcement in the Queen's Speech of yet another NHS reform Bill. We have all been here several times previously. It is "Groundhog Day" in the NHS.
My point is not just that we have another NHS reform Bill but that we still have countless loose ends from previous Bills. First, specialised commissioning is an area of real concern in many specialties. When the Health Act was going through the House, we were repeatedly assured by Ministers that everything would be fine with clusters of primary care trusts developing specialised commissioning skills. That ideal appears to be as far away as ever. Ministers are now desperately trying to find a better way of doing things with a review that started in March. Can the Minister today enlighten us on what progress is being made?
My second point involves the abolition of the CHCs and the creation of patients' forums and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. That was finally agreed in the Health Act but the saga stumbles on. It appears that the Department of Health is contemplating only 600 staff being available for 600 patients' forums. That will clearly be grossly inadequate in light of their new responsibilities, particularly in relation to primary care; it is also contrary to earlier government assurances. ACHCEW, which is still with us—just—calculates that 1,600 staff are in fact needed. An anticipated 300 offices now seem to have been boiled down to 28. How many offices will there be? What are the Government's conclusions about the resources that are needed? Is not a decision long overdue?
Nothing demonstrates the knee-jerk reflexes of the current Secretary of State more than his reaction to the recent rejection of the new contract by consultants in England and Wales. He did not examine the reasons for the rejection. Those reasons are a desire for flexibility; basic mistrust of the way in which government performance management can impact on hospital management; and concern that the new deal would be available only to the "deserving few", in the words of the NHS's head of human resources. What did the Secretary of State do? He announced the reform of merit awards in a way that punishes consultants who do not conform to the new terms and introduced a new sub-consultant grade in the teeth of opposition from junior hospital doctors.
I come to the legislation announced in the Queen's Speech. The NHS reform Bill has two main elements: the introduction of foundation hospitals and the introduction of the new commission for healthcare, inspection and audit. On foundation hospitals, the Liberal Democrats share many of the Government's aspirations as regards decentralisation. Only through that do we believe that we can properly devolve responsibility to where it belongs and deliver better patient care. However, we want to go further. We want decentralisation to democratic regional bodies that can take a strategic role in decision-making, and we want the decentralisation of commissioning to local authorities.
282
We agree that there is a need for greater diversity and provision but there are many unanswered questions. Why force that status on a select group of hospitals? It appears that that will involve at most the 35 or so three-star hospitals, although the figures could even be even lower. The figure of 12 hospitals has been quoted, out of a total of 400 or so hospital trusts. As the BMA and others have put it, why not make the freedoms that are available to foundation hospitals available to all hospitals? Furthermore, why should we not allow local communities to choose whether their local hospitals become foundation hospitals? Why not establish how foundation hospitals operate through a series of pilot schemes? As the Government's own adviser, Mr Adair Turner, has warned—in a report that the Government failed to publish—that carries the danger of creating a two-tier system of healthcare. That system will reward the few at the expense of the many.
Will foundation hospitals be genuinely independent from the Department of Health, or will the Department of Health continue to tangle them in targets? Will the command and control complained of by chief executives continue?
In a press release on 22nd May the Secretary of State talked about NHS foundation hospitals being established as,
"free-standing legal entities free front direction by the Secretary of State for Health".
However, they will be subject to performance monitoring from commissioners. The concern here is not that there is proper enforcement of contracts for patient care but that that will become just another way of enforcing government targets at the expense of local patient priorities.
When will the Government give more details about the powers that the new hospitals will have, and in particular about financial powers and real independence? Will they consult on those powers?
On the new CHI, it has taken a long time for the Government finally to stumble on the right solution for the inspection of acute hospitals. A series of Bills has moved towards the conclusion that we now see appearing before us. The first NHS reform Bill tinder this Government set up the Commission for Health Improvement. The National Care Standards Commission was set up under the Care Standards Act 2000. The next NHS "re-reform" Bill amended the provisions affecting CHI. As soon as the NCSC was set up, the Government decided to merge the inspectorates so that private and NHS hospitals, for example, would have the same inspection regime. We were arguing for the conclusion that was arrived at in the latest NHS reform Bill during the passage of the first reform Bill. However, the Government were not listening at the time.
The crucial test for the new CHI is whether it is truly independent of Government and whether it can genuinely provide a focus for the myriad inspection powers that currently exist in the health service.

283
I have argued on previous occasions that we desperately need to simplify our performance management, clinical governance and inspection regimes in the NHS. The position at the moment for each hospital is similar to the fact that roads in London are dug up just when the last lot of workmen have gone away.
Currently more than 20 bodies have the right to enter and inspect NHS hospitals. We need to ensure that CHI has the authority to ensure that it is the key body to which all other bodies look for validation on the ground, whether that involves the NPSA, the National Clinical Assessment Authority or the royal colleges.
As regards independence, when the Secretary of State announced the merging of CHI and the acute independent hospital inspection side of the National Care Standards Commission, he said that the new body would be at least as independent of government as the Audit Commission. But will it, for example, be allowed to choose its own meaningful performance measures, along with the need to check for adherence to NICE guidance and national service framework standards? I have the highest regard for Sir Ian Kennedy, the new chairman, but we will be scrutinising the provisions of the new Bill very carefully to make sure that this is indeed so. We shall also be arguing for direct accountability to Parliament.
A key plank of the Queen's Speech is the plan to fine or—in new Department of Health-speak—to cross-charge local authorities that fail to arrange for swift discharge of hospital patients into care homes. It is quite clear that not a single organisation supports the proposals—not the NHS Confederation, not the Local Government Association and not the directors of social services. The Government, after some prompting, have finally begun to understand the need for integration between social services and the NHS. Pooled resources and joint working were the product of one reform Bill and care trusts and partnerships were the product of a subsequent Bill.
We supported those concepts, although we argued for more radical change at each stage. Yet, we must now assume that none of that is working. The Government believe that they need to coerce local authorities at high speed—by next April—into compliance with the Government's wishes. Yet, as all of us know, the lack of care home places and of capacity is a direct result of lack of resources. This bright idea is the result of what is now called "health tourism", where a government Minister latches on to an idea gained from a brief trip abroad and then tries to implement it in the wholly different context of health and social services. This particular idea was the product of a trip around Sweden. The foundation hospitals were the product of a trip to Spain. Ministers do get about, don't they?
284
The report by the Select Committee on Health pointed out that, even if the highest estimates are discounted, we have lost 34,000 care beds in recent years. With 6 per cent year on year increases in funding for social services, there is a reasonable prospect of attracting more players into the care home market and finding better home care solutions. But fining local authorities and social services departments for the failure of investment by this and the previous government is grossly unfair.
I know that my noble friend Lady Barker will be referring in more detail to the findings of the Health Select Committee in its excellent report. The report took a far more balanced view about how the problem of delayed discharges could be dealt with. It pointed out that management of discharge needs radical overhaul in many hospitals; a multi-agency team is needed to manage the process of discharge. It pointed out that the system could create the wrong kind of care: support at home is crucial.
Finally, it stated that cross-charging brings a real risk, as the noble Earl mentioned, that perverse incentives will be created that will undermine partnerships that have taken time to develop and foster an unproductive culture of buck-passing and mutual blame between health and social care. The committee argues strongly for positive not negative incentives. I hope that Ministers will read the report from cover to cover before they bring a Bill forward to this House.
A mental health Bill was the key Bill that did not appear in the Queen's Speech. On these Benches, we thoroughly approve of the fact that it did not. Despite all the indications to the contrary, it is clear that the Government have shied away from trying to force through that draft Bill in its current form. The Bill, as drafted, fundamentally confused the needs of mental health patients and service-users with a Home Office security agenda relating to people with severe personality disorder. I am not surprised that there have been tensions between the Home Office and the Department of Health.
The final nail in the coffin of the Bill was the report by the Joint Human Rights Committee, which pointed out the lack of safeguards in the Bill and that it could include those with learning difficulties. We urgently need to update our mental health laws. At the same time I welcome the pledge by the Leader of the other place to bring back a mental health Bill in due course. I just hope that the Government will have listened to all those organisations and the opposition parties and will bring back a Bill that is in far more acceptable form.
Finally, it was a pleasure to see the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act pass into law recently. I hope that the Government will redeem themselves for their tardiness in backing the Bill by now seriously considering a ban on smoking in public places, so that passive smoking is reduced and public health improved, as recently recommended by the BMA

285
which calculates deaths from passive smoking at 1,000 a year. I look forward to the Minister's response to that particular point and to the debate generally.

Sex Offenders
4.24 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement on the reform of the laws on sex offences and offending.
"Today we are publishing a command paper outlining proposals to increase public protection and modernise current laws.
"First, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for Blackburn who, as the former Home Secretary, established these reviews. I pay tribute also to those who contributed to the reviews and to the consultations that followed. A summary of responses has been placed in the Library.
"Protection of the public from dangerous and sex offenders is a priority for this Government and this House.
"All crime has a damaging effect on individuals and communities. But sex crimes, particularly against children, can tear apart the fabric of society.
"We have already put in place important protection measures. We have established public protection panels to manage offenders in the community, and introduced sex offender and restraining orders. We have set up a task force on child protection on the Internet and introduced disqualification orders to stop unsuitable people working with children.
"The registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act have already been strengthened. But there is more that needs to be done, in addition to the revision of sentences and monitoring included in the new criminal justice legislation.
"We are working within government and with other agencies to develop new measures to catch offenders who abscond or change their names without telling the police. As a step towards this, all sex offenders will be obliged to register with the police every year. Fingerprints and photographs will be renewed. Offenders will be required to provide their national insurance details. In future, we will aim to use biometrics to ensure we know who they are and where they are.
"Those entering Britain who we know have been convicted abroad will have to register and to comply with the Sex Offenders Act.
"The research we are publishing today shows that some violent offenders have a greater propensity to commit sex crimes. We are not prepared to wait until they do before we take action. For that reason, we will allow sex offender orders and restraining
286
orders to be taken out against anyone convicted of a serious violent offence if the police believe they present a real risk.
"The law on sex offences is archaic and incoherent. The Sexual Offences Act is 46 years old; and was mostly a simple consolidation of 19th century law. Our proposals for reform reflect changes in society and social attitudes and, most importantly, will better protect the public, particularly children and the vulnerable.
"All sex crimes are abhorrent. But none more so than those committed against children. The Internet has opened up a new world. Chat rooms allow children to contact each other. But we must deal with those who use the Internet to groom children for abuse. To tackle this both on-line and off-line we will create a new offence of sexual grooming. This implements the recommendations of the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet.
"To further strengthen protection we will create a new civil order to prevent inappropriate adult behaviour such as sending children explicit e-mails or photographs. A further offence of an adult committing a sex act with a child will cover anyone over 13 but under 16 and where the ostensible consent of the child has been claimed. It will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years.
"We do not believe that any very young child truly gives consent to an adult. In a recent case a 32 year-old man was tried for having sex with a 12 year-old. The judge pronounced he was not a paedophile. I beg to disagree. In future, such cases will be treated as rape. The issue of consent where a child of 12 or younger is involved will not be relevant.
"We have no intention of interfering in consensual relationships between adults. But some people with a severe mental disorder or a learning disability are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Convictions under current laws are hard to achieve. There are often difficulties in gathering evidence from someone who is not only deeply distressed but does not understand what has happened.
"For that reason we will create a new offence of sex acts with a person who could not have had the capacity to consent".
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am repeating a Statement, so I cannot take questions.
"Mr Speaker, I want more criminals to be convicted. Not at the expense of the innocent but because of the cost to society. Giving more rights to victims and communities does not erode the rights of defendants. This is not a zero-sum game. It is a miscarriage of justice when an innocent person is wrongly convicted. And it is a travesty of justice when the guilty walk free.
"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes there is. The current defence of honest belief in consent means that a rapist can claim in court, no matter

287
how unreasonably, that he 'honestly' believed consent had been given and walk free. That is not justice.
"We do not wish to convict anyone who genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given. But we do expect a defendant to show that his mistake was not only an honest one, but in the circumstances a reasonable one. I have no intention of asking anyone to keep a pen and paper by the bedside. But, we will include a test of reasonableness in the law.
"All rapes, including drug rape, will continue to carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. A new offence of administering drugs with the intent to commit a sex crime will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. We are sending out a clear message that such offences will be treated very seriously.
"A new offence of sexual assault will cover a wide range of offending, from minor assaults through to serious, violent attacks. At the top end of the range, offences will carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
"Much has been written about the question of anonymity. I am not minded to change the present situation for defendants who have been accused of a sex crime. But I am prepared to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on this point.
"There is increasing concern about the role of transnational and organised crime in trafficking children and adults for sexual exploitation. New offences with tough penalties will cover these crimes. We will apply these offences to persons trafficked within the UK, whether they are British citizens or foreign nationals.
"Many in this House will be aware of the terrible exploitation of women and girls through organised criminal activity and the use of pimps to promote and control prostitution. Often, this is linked to drug dependency and what amounts to organised slavery. It is time in the 21st century to face the reality of this sub-world of degradation and exploitation.
"We therefore intend to examine the scope for a review of prostitution. We need to listen carefully to those communities affected most. From anti-social behaviour to Mafia-style criminality, communities are bedevilled by this terrible trade. We must aim to create safer neighbourhoods and an escape route for those trapped by vice.
"Our current laws on sex offences are not only archaic, they are discriminatory. Criminalising acts between homosexuals that are not against the law for heterosexuals goes against the principle of equality and previous reforms. We will therefore update the law to ensure equality of treatment. Consensual sex in private that does not harm anyone should no longer be a criminal offence.
"For the sake of absolute clarity and my own peace of mind, I wish to point out that we will not be legalising sex in public. Existing provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 together with common law offences will remain in place. However, as well as
288
these we will introduce a new offence to deal with specific sex acts in a public place. This will reinforce a sense of decency and respect for others.
"Mr Speaker, our overall aim is to create laws fit for the 21st century which provide confidence and protection—laws which remain true to the time honoured and accepted parameters of a free and civilised society.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. On these Benches, we welcome the content of the Statement. Of course, the White Paper deals with a wide range of issues relating to sex offences. In general, subject to a few caveats, it appears to have struck a sensible balance in dealing with questions that are, by any standards, difficult.
I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for indicating last week that this Bill would be a House of Lords starter in the new year. We will need to scrutinise the detail to ensure that the practical effect of the proposals does not undermine the entirely laudable objectives of protecting children and vulnerable adults and of closing unintended loopholes in the current law.
I am delighted that the Government have decided to adopt four of the key proposals to protect children from sex offenders put forward by my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin earlier this year. We also welcome the Home Secretary's refusal to make the sex offenders register public. Will the clauses relating to grooming be drafted in such a way as adequately to distinguish between a clearly evil pattern of behaviour intended to secure later sexual activity with a child and harmless behaviour by an adult towards a child? That will, no doubt, be particularly difficult to define when dealing with the pattern of behaviour in an extended family.
We welcome new measures to increase protection from sexual abuse for people with mental incapacity. When we debated the matter last month, in the debate so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—I am delighted to see that he is in his place today—I put several questions to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who was kind enough, at the time to say that they were too difficult. He ducked them then; I am having another go now. I hope that I may be luckier this time round. Will persons who are held to lack the capacity to consent to sexual relations themselves be liable for prosecution if they engage in sexual activity with another person who lacks the capacity to consent to sexual relations? Paragraph 62 of the White Paper is not clear. Have the Government gone along with the Law Commission's recommendation that, if neither has capacity, there should be criminal culpability only if there is evidence of abuse or exploitation? Will volunteers who offer their services in residential care or nursing homes, hospitals or the personal home of an individual

289
receiving care be liable to prosecution on the same basis as employees if they abuse their position of trust to abuse vulnerable people in their care? Will the definition of a vulnerable adult cover people required to be resident in the accommodation centres that the Government plan to set up to process the applications of asylum seekers?
I turn to the definition of consent in rape cases. I am sure that we agree that every allegation of rape must be taken seriously. We are aware of the widespread concern that it has become more difficult to secure the conviction of those who are guilty of rape, particularly date rape. However, we must all be cautious. In our desire to obtain the conviction of those who are guilty, we must ensure that we do not sacrifice the need to secure the freedom of those who are falsely accused. We must find the right balance so that juries feel able to convict where it is right to do so.
We believe that the Government have made an important start in a difficult area of policy. As Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we shall now do our job of scrutinising the Bill carefully, constructively and effectively to ensure that the balance struck is struck in the right way when the Bill becomes an Act.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the reform of the laws on sex offences and offending. The issue is of concern to almost all members of the community. We have made several efforts, during the passage of past criminal justice Bills, to ensure that legislation is enacted that will protect children, who are possibly the most vulnerable of our community. We must effectively protect children from exploitation by bringing the law on sex offences into the 21st century. We welcome the Statement.
We will work constructively with the Government and other parties to ensure that children's welfare is of paramount importance. We shall utilise fully the opportunity for reform. We say that because we want the reforms to meet the needs and values of modern Britain. The laws on sex offences are outdated, and there is a danger that they discriminate against some sections of the community. That is well recognised in the White Paper. Almost all aspects of the Statement are welcome. That includes the new sexual offence to protect children, including sexual abuse of a child, grooming and trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children. We would expect legislation to improve the involvement of local communities in the planning system in this important aspect of sentencing and release of offenders.
We welcome the Statement on consent. Does the Minister accept the idea that an individual who is intoxicated cannot consent? It is right to ask the jury to consider the reasonableness of the defendant's claim that he had an honest belief that consent had been given.
We welcome moves to tighten the law on child prostitution to protect the victims from exploitation. Surely, it is right that we have a presumption that
290
under 13 year-olds cannot consent to sex? On the Criminal Records Bureau issue, we have expressed our concern in the past that the Government's policy has gone badly wrong. Indefinite suspension of record checks is putting thousands of children and vulnerable adults at risk. We need assurances from the Minister that that will be put right at the earliest opportunity.
Assurance is needed regarding "sex tourists" who escape the current system by committing offences in countries where there is little awareness of the issues and the means to tackle exploitation of children is not in place. On the minors and sex offenders' register, can the Minister clarify the position of minors who commit sex offences? Has he considered that the Scottish children's hearings system might be a useful model for responding to juvenile sex offenders? There is also need to examine the linked issue with proposals in the criminal justice White Paper regarding jury trials for juveniles.
As regards Sarah's law, can the Minister confirm that there will be no systematic public access to the sex offenders' register? The UK has a high compliance rate—97 per cent, compared to 50 per cent in the United States. On the matter of sex offender treatment, what plans are there to improve treatment facilities in the community? The Wolvercole clinic—the only residential unit in the community—closed in July. On consolidation, I suggest to the Minister, that this is a once in a generation opportunity. Is it possible that there may be a way to consolidate all sex offences Acts within this legislation? That may be the right way to proceed.
A further concern is about police resources to ensure that the offences are prosecuted. The proposed offences require law enforcement to investigate and prosecute successfully. The recent Operation Ore, investigating over 7,200 people who have bought indecent images of children from a website in the US, highlighted the enormous task facing the police dealing with Internet related cases of child abuse The proposed grooming offence will require police resources to ensure that children are not left at risk. The NSPCC is calling for child protection to be a police priority in the forthcoming national policing plan.
In conclusion, we must ensure that the justice system can determine between offenders and those who may be incorrectly charged. In many cases, prosecutions are brought where the recollection of past years has faded. It is important to have tape recording of interviews and not simply reliance on police notes. The Home Affairs Committee in the other place reported on that proposal; I hope that we shall seriously consider it.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their welcome overall of the paper. I agree wholeheartedly that the Bill will need scrutiny in relation to its detail. The detail is very important. Perhaps I may deal first with the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady

291
Anelay. In relation to some of them, she wrote to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who sent her a reply in detail and then sent me a reply saying he was doing my job for me, which I quite agree with. The noble Lord was extremely helpful in the answers that he gave.
The noble Baroness asked whether we shall be drafting the Bill to distinguish between genuine grooming, in the sense of a criminal offence, on the one hand, and innocent contact on the other? The purpose of the grooming offence is designed to catch those people of 18 or over who undertake a course of conduct with a child under 16 leading to a meeting where the adult intends to engage in sexual activity with the child. An element of the offence, no matter how it is put, has to be an intention to have sexual activity with the child. It will be a matter for a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that is the purpose. The noble Baroness is right to distinguish between that sort of case and one where there is innocent contact.
Will a person who lacks capacity to consent be capable of committing the offences referred to in the Command Paper? Again, that will be a question of fact. There will need to be mens rea established on the part of any defendant against whom such a crime is alleged. In addition, there would be an issue of public interest. The same answer arises in respect to the noble Baroness's third question. She asked what would happen where two people, neither of whom had the capacity to consent, engaged in activity that might otherwise be unlawful.
Her fourth question raised the issue of volunteers—would they be caught? The essence of the crime is the abuse of a position of trust. If someone gets into a position of trust in one of the specified circumstances referred to in paragraph 60 of the Command Paper and then abuses that position of trust in ways specified by the law, it should not matter that that person is a volunteer as opposed to an employee. I did not understand the noble Baroness to be asking a specific question in relation to the rape crime; she was saying that it was important to get the balance right. The Government agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a number of issues. In relation to consent, we specify in the Command Paper a number of circumstances—in paragraph 31—where there will be a presumption that consent was most unlikely, though it would be open to the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that, in fact, consent was given. Intoxication is not one of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 31. The noble Lord made the point, in my view rightly, that under 13 one should not be capable of treating it as consent. We agree. It is not just a question of there being a presumption against consent for children of 12 or under. We are saying that a child of 12 or under cannot consent where consent is a relevant factor in the crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the Criminal Records Bureau. He said that it was most unsatisfactory that certain checks are not currently in
292
place. That is correct. However, it is worth pointing out that more checks are taking place now than at the time before the CRB was introduced. The Government are working hard to increase the numbers, but it would be wrong to rush the process if the CRB could not cope with the level of demand.
The noble Lord raised the question of juveniles on the sex offenders' register. Our position is that where a juvenile is charged and convicted of a sex crime to which the sex offenders' register applies, because the register has an element of public protection, it is right that that person should be on it.
The noble Lord raised the question of Sarah's law and asked me to confirm that there would be no systematic publication of the sex register. I am pleased to give that confirmation which my right honourable friend has given in another place. He expressed concern that Wolvercote has closed and that replacement arrangements should be made. We are looking at that. That has been made clear on a number of occasions.
The noble Lord said that this might be the opportunity to consolidate all the laws in relation to sex offences. The consequence of the Command Paper is that there will he a considerable body of law in relation to sex offenders and sex offences in one place. However, I cannot give him an assurance that it will be the whole law because there will still be other statutes that are of relevance.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to the importance of tape recording of interviews, particularly in crimes or potential crimes such as this, where great sensitivity is required. I agree and support what he said.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by my noble and learned friend. Fortunately, I have been involved in only a few but serious cases relating to paedophiles. Will he accept that the situation can be insidious and more widespread than perceived in the first instance by many? Will the police have the resources to investigate such cases?
I welcome in particular the proposals regarding e-mails and the consent of children. We must look at the issue of rape very closely. It is a question of balance. The real problem behind the complaint about so few convictions is that it is usually a one-to-one relationship and there are only two witnesses; the complainant and possibly the defendant. I agree that it must always be a question of balance.
As regards anonymity, I understood my noble and learned friend's remarks to mean that his mind is not closed and he will hear the arguments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon for his remarks, which are gratefully received and come from a source of considerable experience in relation to the trial of serious sex crimes. I agree that child sex abuse is insidious and much more widespread than thought and that it should be a priority for the police.

293
I note what my noble and learned friend says in relation to the consent issue for children of 12 and under and that we will need to look at that carefully when the Bill comes to the House. As regards anonymity, he is right. My right honourable friend said in another place that he is presently inclined not to grant anonymity. However, his mind is not finally made up and he will be interested to hear the arguments.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the new measure mean that when schoolgirls announce that they are pregnant at the age of 12 there will be some prosecution? Is the Minister aware that there is great concern at the unreasonable number of children as young as that—the latest case only two weeks ago—who have said that they are pregnant but no prosecution seems to follow? Does the new measure mean that that situation will change? Unless there is a clear and unequivocal notice that children must not be attacked and made to have sex, I fear that it will continue.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of the proposal, should it become law, is that a girl of 12 is not capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. It does not necessarily follow that in every case a prosecution will take place. First, there must be an investigation as to what happened in such a case. Secondly, I refer the House to paragraph 37 of the Command Paper. It states:
"This means that where it is another child or someone in their mid teens who has sexual activity involving physical contact",
the example given is sexual intercourse,
"with someone under 13, the only charge available will be a nonconsensual offence".
That is rape. It continues:
"However, in some circumstances, particularly where the partners arc close in age and apparently agree to take part in sexual activity, it may be more appropriate to pursue the matter through child protection rather than criminal justice processes".
There will be a public interest aspect in relation to that.
It must be down to the circumstances in every case. Obviously, there will be some serious cases but there will be others in which the kind of consideration referred to in paragraph 37 should be taken into account.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and thank him for his prognostications when replying to the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill which I moved on 11th October last. In that reply, he went as far as he could in hinting that we might well hear something of a similar nature in the gracious Speech. Well, we did and today we have the Statement on the same subject. I am both glad and grateful.
Will the Minister confirm two points? Are all the proposals we made regarding vulnerable adults and those with a learning disability firmly stated in the Command Paper? When the eventual Bill is forthcoming, can the Minister assure me that the clauses will not be lost or diminished by the fierce
294
arguments which are sure to rage over various other headline-grabbing clauses in the Bill? I shall sleep more easily tonight if he can give me such assurances—and I must warn the Minister that I am an extremely light sleeper.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, everyone in this House knows that the noble Lord over many years has campaigned to provide proper protection for vulnerable people in relation both to sex crimes and other matters. The noble Lord introduced the Private Member's Bill to which he referred as part of that campaign which has gone on for many years.
The precise detail is not the same, but the import of what the noble Lord sought to achieve in that Bill we seek to achieve in our Bill. He paved the way for it in his Bill and the debate which occurred on the Second Reading of his Bill reflected many of the concerns with which we seek to deal in this Bill.
We are determined to introduce these measures. No doubt they will excite great controversy in this House and in another place, but we are determined to see them through.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Minister for his Statement and offer a general welcome to the Bill which is in prospect, particularly in relation to the protection of those in our society who are most vulnerable. The Church has been involved in well publicised ways with paedophilia from the position of trust in which ministers often find themselves. The Church of England has in place as tight a regulation of these matters and protection of children as any institution in the country and we have worked hard for that. We now welcome the broader extension of the definition of those who are vulnerable in our society.
Defendants can also be vulnerable. In the general atmosphere in our society, which one could sum up as sexual chaos, there is a danger of looking for scapegoats. One sees that in the popular press all the time. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the danger of embracing in legislation any definition of certain people who can be singled out in that way by the popular press. That leads me to suggest that some protection for those who are accused when it is one person's word against another might well be appropriate, but that will be for the detail.
The Minister also said that it would be inappropriate to discriminate in any way against those engaged in consensual acts in private which harm no one. Harm can take different forms. One of the untold stories in our society is of an epidemic of sexual disease of all kinds. AIDS grabs the headlines but there are many other such diseases. It is a little like deaths on the road; we do not like to talk about them because we are so fond of our motorcars. I hope that when we come to think about what does and does not harm people we can bear those wider issues in mind and test the question of non-discrimination against a wider concept of harm. We on these Benches will want to do that, although we acknowledge that it is improper for

295
the law wrongly to interfere in the private lives of individuals. In general terms, we offer a warm welcome and look forward to the details of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, even though no specific question was asked, I am told that I must rise in reply. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's welcome for the Command Paper. He raised a number of issues. He pointed out that defendants can be vulnerable in certain circumstances. That is true and it requires us to look at the appropriate protections. He also raised the issue of private sexual behaviour. Part of the proposals seek to try to bring an end to discrimination against homosexuality in certain circumstances which is specific in our law. That is one of the purposes of the Command Paper.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as the purpose of the criminal law system is to convict the guilty and to protect the innocent, and as both are equally important, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that there is a great deal to be said for looking at our laws of evidence? Over the years I have suggested to two successive Lord Chancellors—not to the present one—that we should do so.
As regards rape, for example, cases are fought over the question of consent; the difference between the seduction which has been a little overpowering and true rape. It is a matter which can be decided only by a jury, but it would be greatly assisted if there was a review of our laws of evidence. I have suggested over the years that we should consider the French system of an interrogating magistrate and adapt it for this country. A video could be taken of a man accused of rape being interrogated by a police officer in the presence of a magistrate. The video could then be produced as evidence in court. It is no purpose of a lawyer to be part of a conspiracy to cheat justice, and so the defence lawyer could be there to advise his client but not to interrupt the interrogation. The jury could then eventually see what happened on the video.
This could be an important development in our law. It is important to look at the evidence—at what is admissible and what is not admissible—and, as anyone who has practised at the Bar for any length of time knows, it is the initial reaction of a man charged with a serious offence which is often the key to the case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree about the importance of the evidential issues, particularly in cases of rape, which are peculiarly difficult. People on juries always find them extremely difficult to deal with.
As the noble Lord knows, we have looked at the issue from a slightly different angle—that is, by seeking to provide better protection for the victims of such crimes in the giving of their evidence. We have sought to reduce the strain on them by restricting the ability of the defendant to cross-examine in person, by providing greater protection in court and by softening the process to some extent.
296
The noble Lord suggests a wider range of changes, which we need to think about, but such changes are not covered in the Command Paper which addresses the issue of the substantive law relating to sexual offences. The introduction of a reasonableness element in relation to consent will enable a jury to look more critically at that issue. It still will not make it an easy issue, but it will give us a broader canvas on which to paint.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord used the phrase mens rea. Can he explain why it is thought that rape is the one crime for which we will abandon the test of mens rea? In all other serious crimes it is the accused's belief that is in question. If he has taken my property but has an honest belief that he was entitled to it, he has a defence whether that belief is reasonable or not. Why is that test to be abandoned in cases of rape? Above all, why is the onus to be put on the accused to prove that he honestly believed there was consent?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said, normally there are only two witnesses. The lady in question—we will assume it is a heterosexual rape—will say, "I did not consent. After we got back to my flat I said no", and the accused will say, "No, she did not. She may have jokingly said no but I thought it was quite all right". Probably both of them will have had a bit to drink. So why is rape suddenly to be singled out as the crime for which we abandon the normal test of mens rea?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Command Paper states:
"We believe the difficulty in proving that some defendants did not truly have an 'honest' belief in consent contributes in some part to the low rate of convictions for rape. This in turn leads many victims, who feel that the system will not give them justice, not to report incidents or press for them to be brought to trial.
We have a situation in relation to rape where the prosecution has to prove no honest belief in consent. There may well be cases where there has been no consent—the victim has been raped in any common parlance—but the prosecution fails to prove lack of honest belief and the defendant is acquitted. That is not a sensible situation for the law to reach.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in what other area of law have we ever abandoned a test because it is difficult to prove?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I was pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say in reply to an earlier question that the child protection agencies played an important role in many of these issues. I hope that he can confirm that many of these matters, particularly when they refer to vulnerable young people, are more appropriately and more sensibly dealt with in that way.
But when one comes to look at matters which are susceptible to the criminal justice system, we have heard several noble Lords refer to the problems of evidence in this area. Can my noble and learned friend

297
develop a little on how some of these crimes—the new crime, for example, of "grooming" children over the Internet—can properly be investigated when we all know the difficulties of regulating and, indeed, enforcing anything to do with cyber space?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that some of these matters, even though they may constitute a crime, will be better dealt with by child protection agencies, particularly when we are dealing with acts committed between two people both under the age of 18.
As to "grooming", this issue has been looked at in the context of the Internet. In order for an offence to be committed there has to be a meeting. So matters must have moved beyond simply communication through the Internet.
It is worth making the point that the offence of grooming is not restricted to the Internet. It can also be committed in other ways—for example, by telephone or through correspondence to start with—but the critical element is that the meeting is the trigger. Even then, the purpose of the meeting and what went before must have been with the intention on the part of the adult to have a sexual relationship with a child.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord considered whether there should be sexual offences less than rape but involving sexual intercourse?
He has no doubt considered the reasons for the low conviction rate, but perhaps I may suggest to him that there are probably one or two to which he has not given regard. At the Bar, it was widely accepted that one of the reasons for the low conviction rate was the abysmally low fees that the CPS paid to the Bar. The former Attorney-General nods. That has been—I will not say put right—altered in that what the Lord Chancellor's Department agreed on the subject of graduated fees for the defence has been reduced, despite the agreement, in order that the reduction may be added to what is paid to the prosecution. So it may be that we will see a better balance between the two.
Secondly, the word "rape" strikes horror in the mind of everyone, and in a jury in particular. It knows that the starting rate of imprisonment is probably six years or thereabouts. It looks at the weeping family of the prisoner and it comes to the conclusion that not all that much harm was done—they were on reasonable terms, they flirted, they drank together—and for the man to go to prison for six years or thereabouts offends its sense of proportion, and accordingly the jury acquits. A lesser offence with a lesser tariff would make a big difference.
As has been pointed out by the former Attorney-General, these cases are usually a one-to-one contest. The onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt—or, to use the phrase of Lord Goddard, which I always found put it up a bit, you have got to be satisfied so that you
298
feel sure—and that is a very high onus. With a one-to-one situation, you cannot expect a high rate of conviction. Those matters should be borne in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the inequality of alms between prosecution and defence, that was an issue at the time when my noble and learned friend Lord Morris was the Attorney-General and I was the Solicitor General. My noble and learned friend took steps to ensure that the issue of equality was dealt with, and that has made a considerable difference to the nature of prosecutions by the CPS.
As to the noble and learned Lord's second point, the essence of his question was—this is putting it simplistically—"What about a charge equal to rape but of a lesser seriousness in relation to what might be described as 'date rape"?". That matter was considered before publication of the Command Paper, but the view we have taken is that rape is rape and cannot be divided into more and less serious offences. It can be equally as traumatic to be raped by someone you know and trust, who has chosen you as his victim, as it can be to be raped by a complete stranger. Always there will be difficulties in relation to these kinds of offences for the reason given by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris—that is, they frequently involve a one-to-one relationship. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there will always be that difficulty, we do not think that it is right to divide it into two in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
5.11 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as this gives me the opportunity to pay a personal tribute to him for his tenacity in introducing and subsequently taking through this House the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
I want also to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who supported the Bill at every stage and, crucially, succeeded in persuading his colleagues in another place to take over the Bill and turn it into a government Bill, which was finally enacted two weeks ago.
I must pay tribute also to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who made no secret of his support for the Bill, despite some difficulties during our debates. He did not in any way obstruct its passage.
It was an important piece of legislation for two reasons. First, it will save the lives of 3,000 people each year, many of them young adults who would otherwise have been tempted to smoke and would have been killed as a direct consequence. Secondly, it was the first demonstrable piece of anti-smoking legislation to be passed by this Government since they came to power

299
in 1997. It builds on the excellent Smoking Kills White Paper, published by the Department of Health in December 1998.
There has been a decline in smoking levels among adults, but these tend to be older people and people in the higher socio-economic groups. There has been almost no reduction in the under-24s, and none at all in females under 19. In 1998, 42 per cent of people between 20 and 24 smoked, and 26 per cent of 15 year-olds were regular smokers.
These are all Department of Health figures, published quite recently. They underline the need to do everything possible to discourage young people from starting smoking. That will mean taking on the tobacco industry—which knows that, as its product kills its older consumers, it must find youngsters to replace them and get them hooked through the addictive properties of nicotine. The companies must not be allowed to skirt around the legislation with "brand stretching"—using glamorous merchandising such as boots, clothing and adventure travel to sell tobacco.
The commercial placement of cigarettes in films, video games and other settings must be stopped. It is deplorable that the tobacco industry should be celebrating the conversion of Mr James Bond to cigar smoking in the new film and regard this as a very successful piece of product placement.
I hope that my noble friend will not think me churlish if I express my disappointment at the absence of further smoking and health related measures in the gracious Speech. Public opinion is moving steadily against tobacco smoking, especially in public places such as restaurants and pubs, on public transport, in the workplace and in front of children.
There is a growing awareness of the dangers of passive smoking, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as well as a revulsion among non-smokers against inhaling other people's smoke and having their clothes impregnated with the stench of stale tobacco smoke.
This is the time when the Government should be building on their achievement in passing the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. They should be coming forward with new measures which both reflect the public mood and lead opinion.
For if we can prevent 3,000 premature deaths each year by banning advertising and sponsorship—that is a very significant figure; it is as many as die on the roads each year, and far more than die from all illegal drugs put together—how many more lives could we save with fresh anti-smoking initiatives? The number that die each year from smoking tobacco is 120,000.
It seems to me that there are three strands of policy-making within the Government. First, there are those who recognise the dangers of smoking and passive smoking and are determined to do something about it. In this category I place my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and his ministerial colleagues and officials in the Department of Health.
300
The second strand consists of those in government who sympathise with the need to do more, but are required—perhaps through international obligations—to take measures which are against their instincts but which are none the less helpful to the tobacco industry.
Two examples of this are the maintenance of subsidies under the common agricultural policy for tobacco-growers in the EU, mostly in Italy and Greece, and the recent relaxation on the personal import of drink and tobacco from across the Channel.
One billion euros is spent on subsidising tobacco growing in the European Union, of which our share is some £80 million—£80 million, my Lords! That is £25 million more than we spend on health education programmes trying to protect our own public from the harmful effects of tobacco.
In a Written Answer on 28th March 2001, my noble friend Lady Hayman, then a Minister of Agriculture, said:
"The Government strongly disapproves of the common agricultural policy support scheme for tobacco which was introduced in 1970 … We believe that the Community should progressively disengage from support for tobacco production on grounds of health and cost".—[Official Report, 28/3/02; col. WA 41.]
But it continues.
The other example is the recent decision to raise—or indeed virtually abolish—the limit on the number of cheap cigarettes people can bring in from continental Europe, largely, it appears, in response to a tabloid newspaper campaign. In replying to the debate, will my noble friend explain why no effort was made to reinforce anti-smoking messages when the Treasury made the announcement that people could bring in up to 3,200 cigarettes per person?
I wonder whether my noble friend saw the letter in the Independent from Professor Stephen Spiro of University College, London. The professor wrote:
"This relaxing of the rules is an encouragement to smoke more, and it also deprives the Government of a huge tax income that could have gone towards health … Surely this is another depressing negative step in our facing up to tobacco control. It is a very sad reflection that so little is being done to actively prevent cigarette consumption".
The third strand of policy-making in the Government in this area covers those who have successfully resisted the introduction of measures that would make a real difference to the health of the nation, and at the same time would make life more pleasant for the 80 per cent of the population who are non-smokers.
This means tackling the scourge of second-hand tobacco smoke. Passive smoking is a cause of fatal disease such as lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers. In addition, it is a hazard to those with lung conditions, who are in effect being excluded from smoky environments at work or in public—a very obvious case of discrimination.
So many of us are just sick of the stinking atmosphere it creates. Normally, when one person's actions affect the well-being of another, society intervenes. That is not so with passive smoking, even though it can prove fatal.

301
Tobacco companies and their apologists still try to argue that "the jury is out on passive smoking". That is not true. According to the Daily Telegraph on 7th November, a report by the British Medical Association's Board of Science and Education and the Tobacco Control Resource Centre concluded,
"that there was no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke and that millions of people were particularly vulnerable".
That is 8 million with lung disease, 2.1 million with angina, 1.3 million who have had a heart attack and 300,000 who have had a stroke. A total of 5.1 million people are receiving treatment for asthma, 1.5 million of whom are children. They are all at risk from passive smoking, as are 0.75 million pregnant women.
It is not as if the Government are unaware of what needs to be done. They have been consulting for almost four years on the approved code of practice on passive smoking at work prepared by the Health and Safety Commission. It is also possible to see how the problem is being tackled by other countries, many with tobacco-smoking traditions even more ingrained than ours. The Irish Republic has just announced that from next year it will outlaw smoking in all restaurants and pubs where food is served. Early this month, the Senate in Italy approved an anti-smoking measure that would forbid cigar and cigarette smoking in public places and require restaurants to confine smoking to special sections and to install ventilation systems.
By contrast, we continue to drag our feet here. The lack of action on an ACOP is unacceptable. Its absence is denying people a statutory right to work in a smoke-free environment. It is no secret that the Department of Health wishes to see it introduced without delay. Here again, I exempt my noble friend Lord Hunt from any criticism in this regard. It is the hospitality industry that seeks to block its introduction in pubs and restaurants thereby denying bar and waiting staff protection from customers' second-hand smoke. It continues to argue for its own voluntary public places charter. The editor of the The Good Pub Guide is in no doubt about the worth of that charter. In his introduction to the 2003 edition, Mr Alistair Aird draws attention to new signage that has gone up in pubs this year stating that smoking is allowed throughout the premises. I quote from his introduction:
"These notices have been produced and promoted by an outfit which gets funding from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. This flies directly in the face of the main purpose of the legislation to prohibit cigarette advertising, which is of course to stop the promotion itself".
Far from creating new rights and opportunities for non-smokers, the charter is encouraging the notion that smoking, and drinking and eating in pubs and restaurants are inseparably linked. Given that the new Licensing Bill, which comes before your Lordships next week for its Second Reading, will remove the restrictions on children from entering pubs, can my noble friend assure me that children will not be allowed to enter sections of licensed premises where they will be exposed to tobacco smoke? Will the Government look favourably on amendments to the Bill that would seek to achieve that?
302
On cancer research, I declare my interest as a patron of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Will my noble friend comment on why lung cancer attracts only 3 per cent of research money even though it causes 22 per cent of all cancer deaths and accounts for 15 per cent of new cases a year? We know that stopping people from smoking, persuading them not to start and protecting non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking would have by far the greatest impact on lung cancer figures. But it is undeniable that if lung cancer is diagnosed early, survival rates are much better. The University of Iowa has conducted research that shows that people are 40 times more likely to survive if diagnosed early. Early diagnosis needs to be followed by early intervention. That means that we need more—many more—thoracic surgeons to bring us into line with European average standards for thoracic surgery. GPs need the confidence that, if they refer patients for lung cancer surgery, they will be operated on quickly. At present, there is much evidence that older patients do not get referred because their GPs are not confident that that will happen.
These issues are at the forefront of the Global Lung Cancer Awareness Month, which was launched by Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation on 5th November. I hope my noble friend will be able to give his unqualified support for this initiative and reassure me that the Government's commitment to reducing smoking and combating the influence of tobacco companies remains firm.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I will make a further point on smoking and tobacco later. In some ways, this debate marks the final demise of the old Department of Health and Social Security, which was created by Harold Wilson to get art overview over both sides. In this debate it is gently suggested that we should indicate which side we will be speaking on. When I was Secretary of State, it was frequently suggested that the DHSS should be split. When I was forever being battered by organisations such as the National Association of Health Authorities, whose director bears a striking resemblance to the Minister who will be making the winding-up speech on this debate, it was proposed as a way forward. When looking at cuttings featuring the Minister, I noticed that he had a rather interesting suggestion. When the department was divided, he said:
"A more fundamental reform would have been to separate the NHS management board from the DHSS and run it as a separate agency which would allow the NHS to develop in an efficient way without too much central interference".
I am not sure that most of us recognise that as an entire description of the Government's health policy. Perhaps it is their secret agenda that they will come to.
I was told that, when the department was split, all the problems would melt away and that if health had a department of its own, it would be clear and uncontroversial sailing from then onwards. I am not

303
sure that any Minister who has served in either the Conservative government or the Labour Government would recognise that as a description of what has happened. That is not to say that Ministers have not tried. I asked the House of Lords Library to find out how the number of press officers had changed since the department was split. In its efficient way, the Library told me that the Department of Health now employs 22 press officers and that the Department for Work and Pensions now employs 21 full-time press officers. Between them, they now employ 43 full-time press officers. The Library Clerk added:
"In relation to the number of press officers employed by the Department for Health and Social Security in 1986, the Department of Health have told me that they are not able to provide the figure at short notice, as the relevant files are held in Lancashire".
A few days later, they wrote again to say that the department had been,
"unable to find a record of the number of press officers employed by the Department for Health and Social Security in 1986. They are not aware of any other sources that may hold this information".
My department did not have 43 press officers. Even when I employed Edwina Currie, I did not need that number of press officers. I suggest that the number has doubled, if not more, in that time.
The truth is that however you organise a department, and these two departments, the issues covered remain among the most important in any government. I wish to touch briefly on three of them. The first is on what the noble Baroness who opened the debate referred to in the context of pensions. I would call it the pensions crisis, because I believe that it is just that. I have always believed, rather like her, that the basic pension provision should be in the hands of the government. The second tier, however, should be from personal provision. I make no complaint of the Government's policy on the basic state pension. Similarly, I make no complaint on pension credit. As the Government know, I support that, because they keep on quoting my words in support of their policy. I need no persuasion on that. I do, however, make complaint about the Government's policy to personal provision. Rather than encouraging personal provision, they have discouraged it over the past four or five years.
We did not all recognise the noble Baroness's reply on the £5 billion a year pension tax as a description of what has taken place in this country. The policy is likely to go down as a classic mistake, introduced on a false assumption that the stock market would continue to go up and up, when entirely the opposite took place.
I also condemn the Government's refusal to do anything about the annuity problem and compulsory annuities at 75. We now hear suggestions that tax reliefs are under threat and that there will be a Green Paper on the subject in due course. Doubtless there will be a debate on it, so I shall leave my full remarks until then. However, the Government will not be forgiven if they make the position even more difficult for those who are trying to make some provision for their
304
retirement, in contrast, perhaps, with those in some of the public sector schemes. There is a serious danger of there being two nations in retirement in this country. We should avoid that.
My second point concerns health generally. I support the concept of devolving power and the step forward on foundation hospitals. I suspect that had we done that in government, the Labour Party would have attacked us outright, but we should not complain about that. I also suspect that right now the Government would prefer the support of former Labour Health Secretaries rather than former Conservative Health Secretaries on that policy.
The health debate should not just be about hospitals, as it so often is. It should also be about primary care and community care. I shall give one example. The Minister who will wind up the debate was responsible for an important paper on Pharmacy in the Future. I immediately declare an interest as chairman of Numark, which is the biggest organisation of community pharmacists in the United Kingdom. It has always seemed to me that pharmacists could play a much greater role in healthcare. They are an enormous resource of professionally qualified men and women who are capable of relieving pressure on general practitioners and of playing a much greater role advising the public on the treatment and prevention of ill health. As the Minister knows, there arc important decisions ahead, with the OFT report. Above all, how should all this be organised? The nightmare would be if we went the way of the United States, with pharmacies too often relegated to the backs of supermarkets. Coming to the noble Lord's point, already we have the spectacle of a pharmacy in one part of a supermarket and the company's cigarette kiosk on the other side of the checkout. Make them ill at one end and try to alleviate at the other does not seem an entirely sound health policy. In conducting and informing policy, I hope that the Government will take their decisions above all on health grounds.
My third and most fundamental point concerns a crucial aspect of health policy that risks becoming neglected in this country: the policy on HIV/AIDS, which was referred to in an intervention by one of the Bishops. Internationally, the scale of the tragedy is clear and terrible. At the start of the 1980s, the World Health Organisation predicted that by 2000, 40 million people would be infected. The WHO was criticised and attacked for exaggerating the problem. In fact, by 2000, 56 million people were infected, of whom, it is estimated, 20 million have died. Some 13 million children have lost one or both parents. Eight thousand people a day are dying from AIDS. The vast majority of people with HIV live in the developing world. AIDS is reversing years of development gain and bringing untold misery from Africa to India, from China to eastern Europe and central Asia. We should underline that the predictions are that the problem will continue to increase, not decrease.
I shall seek to return to the international challenge on another occasion. The response from the West has not matched the challenge. Of course our figures in the

305
United Kingdom—thank God—are not on the African or Asian scale, but we might remember that there have already been 15,000 HIV deaths. It is estimated that there are currently 30,000 to 35,000 people living with HIV. New reports of HIV infection last year approached 5,000. That is the highest ever annual total and represents the fourth year in succession that there has been an increase. Worst of all, the evidence is that young people are ignoring safer sex messages or have no understanding of the risks that they are taking. Anyone who wants further proof of that should look at the figures for sexually transmitted diseases generally. Attendance at the special clinics has doubled over the decade. We now have more than 1 million people attending per year. That has put the clinics—much admired around the world, but underfinanced—under enormous pressure so that the whole policy of open access and self-referral is under challenge, putting at risk much of the policy in this area.
To be blunt, there is not much for our comfort here. We face a deteriorating position that demands action from the Government. Self-evidently, this is not remotely a party issue, but I must say in all seriousness to Ministers that I know of no one working in this area who believes that the response in the past few years has been adequate to the scale of the problems. What is needed? At a dinner of the Terrence Higgins Trust last week I asked that question to a professor who is working closely in the area. His response was clear: educate the young. That must be right. We need to remember that there is still no cure and no vaccine for HIV/AIDS. We hope for a vaccine, but none of us knows how long it may take. Public education is our chief prevention weapon and our only vaccine.
I am more than occasionally lectured that my 1986 campaign was too shocking, together with various other criticisms. I regret that the press officers at the Department of Health—perhaps to excuse their own inactivity—now quietly brief against it. The figures show clearly that that campaign and the needles exchange policy that we introduced had a clear impact on reducing the infection rate and improved knowledge and understanding. There is no doubt about that.
I am not arguing that the campaign that we carried out in 1986 is appropriate for 2002, but some campaign that has real impact is urgently needed if we are to reverse the present position. We also need a new effort with schools at the same time. The 2002 Ofsted report says that schools have cut the time spent on HIV and sex education. The Schools Health Education Unit has concluded that four out of 10 teenage boys have not heard of a disease called AIDS or HIV, yet it is one of the biggest killers that the world has ever seen.
The responsibility for that must lie with the Government. They have the ability to put out straightforward messages that spell out the dangers and say what can be done to avoid them. One of the real tragedies of HIV/AIDS is that it can be prevented. We are not doing enough to prevent it today. That puts
306
us in a very weak moral position when we come to advise other countries. As we enter the third decade of HIV/AIDS, this is no time to relax our efforts.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I declare my professional interest, noted in the register, as an investment manager of pension funds for the past 26 years. I shall concentrate today on the plight of occupational pension schemes, on which half our working population still depend. In a sobering debate in this House in May, I joined the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Higgins and others in warning of the financial crisis facing pension funds in this country. I think it is fair to say that in essence, the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was, "Crisis? What crisis?". We shall see. If she wants the quote, I have it here.
I cannot recall a time in my working life when people were so fearful—and, frankly, cynical—about the future of their pension schemes. The Maxwell scandal, shocking though it was and clearly though it showed the scope for outright fraud, was rightly seen as a one-off, which did not threaten the long-term compact between employers, pensioners, older and younger workers on which our final salary pension schemes depend. By contrast, the Equitable Life tragedy corrodes confidence in the pension promises week after week and month after month.
In the worst pension crisis before Maxwell, the runaway inflation and stock market collapse of the mid-1970s, most employers behaved responsibly: they held their nerve and showed their commitment to their workforce by raising, not cutting, their pension fund contributions, even when their own profits were going through the wringer. Courtaulds was a notable example. When I joined as its pension fund manager in 1981 the fund was worth twice as much as the company, but we kept faith with the scheme members. We invested more in real, long-term assets when markets were depressed and yields were high. Our pensioners and the company both reaped the benefit when equity markets recovered, as they always have done in Britain on a 10-year view, or sooner. Pension fund investment is a long-term business. The worst mistake you can make is to go liquid, or close your fund when markets are cheap and shares offer their best long-term value.
Many employers' reactions to the problem of the past few years have been quite different. A devastating report from the Association of Consulting Actuaries only last week showed that over half of all occupational pension schemes had now closed to new members. Many well-known companies are even breaking faith with existing employees by stopping them contributing now to get their promised proportion of final salary when they retire. There are, of course, honourable exceptions; for example, Northern Foods, which is increasing its contribution rate by 2 per cent of salary to protect its final salary scheme. But many mean and short-sighted employers are only too happy to start a race to the bottom in pension provision. The John Lewis Partnership has

307
complained that its competitors in retailing are eagerly closing their pension schemes. Therefore, what we have now is a modern version of Gresham's Law: bad pension provision is driving out the good.
The latest figures from the Government Actuary's Department show that the average employer's contribution is 11.1 per cent of employees' salaries in defined benefit—that is, the traditional final salary schemes—against only 5.1 per cent in defined contribution, or money purchase schemes. Almost always these days, closure of a final salary scheme and its replacement by a money purchase scheme means a unilateral pay cut by employers. Employees, their trade unions, or other representatives, and the TUC, are quite right in my view to protest vigorously, and, in the last resort if employers refuse to consult, to strike against that pay cut. Alan Pickering sums it up succinctly at the start of his report: employers must keep to their side of the bargain with employees and meet their pension promises.
But far too many employers do not do so. The whole fabric of occupational pension schemes in this country is being torn up before our eyes. Solvent as well as struggling companies are able to close their schemes with impunity and break a moral, if not a legal contract with many of their longest-serving employees. Whatever the attractions in principle of moving towards more portable, money purchase pension arrangements for younger and more mobile employees, they do not justify welshing on existing scheme members. Ministers may wring their hands, but what are they actually going to do to protect those pension rights?
In response to an earlier intervention today from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, claimed that by abolishing pension dividend tax credits the Chancellor of the Exchequer "corrected" an "anomaly" and that that is why our economy is healthy today. Does the noble Baroness really believe that our pension funds are healthy at present? Let us look carefully at that claim.
The Government's raid on pension funds is a key part of the pension problem. In his July 1997 Budget speech the Chancellor justified it by saying that,
"many funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays".
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out, how fast the world has changed! Markets are cyclical. Pension funds and insurance companies have always built up surpluses in the good times to see them through the bad. If Gordon Brown takes your pension overcoat away because the sun is shining in July, it is no surprise when you shiver in January.
Geoffrey Robinson, the honourable Member for North West Coventry, and Paymaster General at the time of that Budget, gave the real reason for the pension fund tax in his memoirs:
"The calculations we commissioned from Andersen's suggested abolishing tax credits would benefit the Exchequer to the extent of approximately £5 billion per annum on an ongoing basis. We needed the money. It had to come from somewhere … This, we
308
all realised, was a politically explosive issue. We anticipated a huge hullabaloo from all quarters. But if the target was going to be met, the tax credits had to go".
They got away with their raid because the markets were strong in 1997–98, but I can assure the Government that they will face the hullabaloo now.
Myners, Pickering, Sandler—we have had review after review after review in short order—all tell much the same story. Myners says:
"There is a lack of confidence in and knowledge of the pensions system".
Pickering comments:
"The negative public perception of the financial services industry is not just a commercial problem for providers, distributors and advisers, but also a key impediment to meeting the Government's aim of raising levels of retirement saving".
And Sandler observes:
"The current taxation regime for long-term savings has increased consumer confusion, exacerbating the problem of consumer weakness. The significant majority of consumers find savings products confusing and have little confidence in their ability to discriminate between products and providers".
Most significant of all, Sandler's report concludes by raising the question of the need for compulsory saving for retirement, as in Australia. He says that this,
"has an obvious and strong appeal in that it deals directly with the problem of insufficient saving, rather than trying to tackle it at second hand. If the savings level is to be raised, it may be necessary to confront difficult issues such as this one. Compulsion is an important question which deserves serious and wide ranging debate".
We on these Benches agree with him. We shall set out our proposals fully in our response to the forthcoming pensions Green Paper.
If noble Lords remember their 1066 and All That, which I have been re-reading recently, they will recall that the authors invented "The Review of Reviews of Reviews". They must have seen the Government's pensions policy coming. What we need in the forthcoming Green Paper is not another review; we need to see urgent action on five key problems. The first is Gordon Brown's crippling pension fund dividend tax. The second is the rising tide of pension fund closures; and the third is the lack of protection for contributors—not pensions in payment, but contributors—when pension schemes wind up. The latter is a particular example of the current ASW problem, as featured on last Sunday night's "Panorama" programme in which that point was clearly made.
Fourthly, we need action on the ridiculous rule forcing 75 year-olds to buy annuities; and, finally, there is the £27 billion long-term savings gap, as estimated by the Association of British Insurers. If that is not a pension fund in crisis, could the Government please tell us what one would look like? It is far too serious for any more government dither, drift and delay.
5.47 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, despite the fact that more and more money has been pumped into the NHS, morale seems to be at a very low ebb indeed. But

309
what exactly has contributed to this state of affairs? Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. A consultant-surgeon arranged to remove a benign tumour from a patient's neck as a day case. He arranged the operation six months in advance, because there was no hurry. It would mean that the operation would he completed during the winter. However, 24 hours before the operation was due to take place an administrator approached the surgeon and said, "You can't do the operation because the patient is outside the catchment area of the hospital".
Therefore, to avoid inconveniencing the patient and wasting valuable theatre time, the surgeon, in desperation, offered to pay for the operation. The administrator said that it would cost £3,500, whereupon the surgeon pointed out that he could have the operation carried out in the private sector for £600. The administrator explained that the patient would have to stay in the hospital for three days because that is what was laid down in his book. After a rather heated discussion during which the surgeon pointed out that the administrator knew nothing about surgery, they eventually agreed that the operation could go ahead on a day-case basis and the surgeon gave the administrator a cheque for £600 made payable to the hospital.
The operation went ahead and was successful. However, being a Scot, the surgeon telephoned his bank a month afterwards to see whether the cheque had been cashed. On discovering that it had not been, he cancelled it; and nothing more was heard about the matter. Noble Lords need not be surprised at that, such is the financial control in the NHS.
Heart surgeons are pretty demoralised these days. They are very unhappy about the bureaucracy which demands that they should not have a mortality of more than, say, 5 per cent. Consider the example of a heart surgeon who has done 90 operations and has lost one patient, giving him a mortality rate of approximately 1 per cent. Suppose he is then presented with 10 patients, all of whom need a heart operation and will die without one. Such are the risks with these 10 patients, however, that half of them will die even with surgery. The surgeon realises that if he takes on the 10 patients and five die, his mortality rate will increase to 6 per cent. So he declines to operate on the 10, maintaining his mortality rate at 1 per cent. But is it really 1 per cent? As 10 patients have died as a result of not having treatment, one might argue that his rate is 11 per cent. The bureaucracy, however, does not take that into account.
That is the way in which the ethos of medicine is being radically changed. The surgeon has to think first and foremost not of his patient, but of himself and his family. If his mortality rate goes beyond a certain point, he may be suspended and lose his job. That is truly had for patients and truly bad for morale. It is one of the things that is truly undermining the NHS.
The BMA says that consultants want to provide the best possible care for their patients and do not want to be driven by targets which distort the delivery of care for those in greatest need. It is in the patient's interests that the consultants retain their professional
310
autonomy and clinical independence, which is why the majority of consultants rejected the proposed new contract. The Secretary of State has been reported as saying that he does not want to renegotiate this contract and that no more resources are available. However, he misunderstands the position. Money has not been the primary issue leading consultants to reject the contract in England and Wales. Indeed, sonic of the problems identified could be resolved quite easily without additional resources.
In the psychiatric sphere, it has been laid down that children must be seen within a very short time. The administrators are fearful that if this is not accomplished, they may lose their jobs. So they become like demons attacking the clinicians to comply with the targets, often reducing the clinicians to despair. What actually happens is that the children are seen within the target time, hut, as there is not time to treat them, they are put on a waiting list to be treated later. So the actual treatment is delayed even longer. That really is a farce. One of the cris de coeurs that I hear not only from surgeons but from clinicians of all kinds is that they wish that the administrators would stop telling them what they cannot do and start encouraging them to do what they can do.
Morale among junior staff is also very low. Consider the example of a young surgeon training to be a maxillo-facial surgeon. First he has to qualify in dentistry; then he has to qualify in medicine; then he does junior jobs and higher diplomas; and then, finally, 22 years later, he is fully trained. He then picks up the newspaper and reads that there is going to be a sub-consultant grade. So, at the last minute, this chap has the prospect of waiting another 10 years before he becomes a consultant. The idea of introducing a sub-consultant grade is certainly another factor demoralising the profession.
Quite understandably, the BMA is firmly opposed to such a move, fearing that the quality of care available to patients will suffer if the gold standard of UK consultant training is abandoned. There is do doubt that morale is low. Adding to the problem, of course, is the fact that the number of people applying to do medicine is beginning to decrease. Just this morning, on the "Today" programme, the President of the Royal College of Pathologists said that morale among pathologists is very low and that, unsurprisingly, there are now more than 1,000 vacancies in the pathology service.
The diagnosis is quite clear that something is radically wrong, and it might be wise of us to look at ether organisations from which we can learn, despite the difficulties that that presents. I have spent several months in each of the past six or seven years working on a hospital ship, visiting the poorest countries in Africa. That floating hospital is one of the happiest hospitals I have worked in. In fact, it is the only hospital where I can operate from early morning to late night all week long without anyone trying to stop me or saying that they are off duty or anything like that. One Easter holiday, we operated all day on Good Friday, Easter Saturday and Easter Monday, although we did have the Sunday off.
There are difficulties in making comparisons between different organisations, but when one encounters an organisation where morale is so high

311
and productivity is so good, surely it is worth looking at. The astonishing aspect of that charity, and what appeals to me as a Scot, is that no one on the ship is paid. All of us, including the captain, even have to pay for our food and keep. As it is a ship, of course it has to be under tight control and there have to be regulations; but there is no oppressive bureaucracy. The nurses, doctors, cooks, engineers, teachers and children are from 30 different nations, and they all work and live together in very good harmony.
No organisation is perfect, and, as a surgeon, I recognise that some surgeons are occasionally described as aggressive psychopaths. The solution which I have found is to have my wife, who is a doctor, assist me; having one's wife on the other side of the table provides a certain controlling influence. Although we have done this work for years, the nurses sometimes think that I am being a bit fresh with my lady assistant. When I explain that she is my wife, they say, "That's what they all say". Nevertheless, it is worth considering the example of that type of organisation. It is not controlled by a distant bureaucracy but is allowed to govern itself, and it does so with great enthusiasm.
It was encouraging to hear in the Queen's Speech that the Government are going to introduce foundation hospitals. I look forward to hearing how those will differ from the trust hospitals and—going further back—from the old teaching hospitals, which, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, certainly ran their own affairs. Morale in teaching hospitals was very high and everyone was delighted to work in them.
It is essential that something radical is done to restore morale. The Government need to have urgent talks with the professions to get the NHS back on an even keel and to create conditions in which the workforce are happy and content. The imposition of the consultant contract on the profession is seen as an infringement of liberty and an attempt to dragoon doctors into being state employees. There was enormous goodwill when the NHS was started; altruism was there, and a very important component it was. It is essential that we try to take the petty party politics out of the NHS and focus principally on the needs of the patients. In order to do that, we have to have a happy workforce who are treated reasonably and are not subjected to suffocating bureaucracy.
5.59 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Government are having a bad time in this debate. I apologise for continuing in the same vein. I want to talk about PFIs and PPPs. I also apologise for the fact that this is the third time in 12 months that I have tried to do so in this House. My explanation is that I have asked a series of questions to which I have not received answers either from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, or from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But tonight the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to reply to the debate and I am more optimistic.
312
I should also say that I shall not be ideological. As I have said before, it is the other fellow who is ideological. One insults him or her for being ideological. I am not ideological: I am reasonable. Neither shall I be pragmatic, although frequently the Government say that we should be pragmatic. I am always worried about the word "pragmatic". I have warned the Government about it before, so I looked it up. The OED says that to be pragmatic is to be officious, interfering, opinionated and doctrinaire; so let us hear no more about being pragmatic.
I want what I say to be, as the IPPR report on PFIs said, "evidence based". That is the issue. To hell with ideology and to hell with pragmatism. What is the evidence that PFIs or PPPs have done what we expected them to do?
First, it is self-evident—if someone wants to contradict me I shall be pleased—that the Government do not seek to justify anything that was done in the bad days of Tory privatisation. No one wants to justify what the Government are doing by reference to the contracting out of laundry services, catering services, cleaning services and certainly no one wants to justify railway privatisation. We do not want to justify any of that. We did not at the time and we said it was terrible. So, according to new Labour, there is no history of the privatisation of public services succeeding. On the contrary. What was done before 1997 did not succeed and we said it was a bad idea.
Secondly—if anyone from the Government wants to defend it they can—we do not wish to defend PFIs or PPPs by reference to those early scandals: for example, what happened in the Public Health Laboratory Service, or the National Insurance Contributions Agency or the Housing Benefit outsourcing activity or the computerisation of the Passport Service. No one wants to justify those examples. They were all disasters.
So what can we justify? What has happened? What have we developed since the Government came into office that is different from what the Government said was the previous disastrous legacy of privatisation in the public sector? Here we have to go back to a statement made in 1994 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons. In that statement the Labour Party gave three reasons why we had to change our previous policies, change our previous attitudes and embrace a measure of privatisation in public services. At the time they were good reasons.
The first reason was that various studies had been carried out. The study of the national institute was crucial in this respect. In the early 1990s it produced a magnificent report to show that the past rate of investment in the public sector, particularly in the 1980s but also in the late 1970s had not been sufficient to cover the rate of depreciation. In other words, net asset values in the public sector were declining and there had been no effective expansion at all. So something had to be done. Secondly, it said that among the public there was a rising level of demand and a rising possibility of treatment in the health

313
service because of innovation and technological advance. There were also rising demands in education and in the area of crime prevention; therefore there had to be a significant increase in the rate of public investment. Finally the report said—it is important in terms of what happened subsequently—that there were still restrictions on what could be done by public provision in terms of the money available. There were still problems about the PSBR, the Growth and Stability pact, and so on. Therefore it said that there were real limits to what could be expected as a result of the borrowing requirements in the public sector.
Something had to be done to deal with those problems. As I understand it. the solution, as it was developed at that time—if I have it wrong I hope that the Government will tell me—was that private money should be injected to provide increased services across the board in the public sector. I am trying hard to be fair to the Government: no one ever said that that would he a net addition of funds. They were concerned about the hump costs, given that the initial injection of capital at the beginning would be very substantial. But if we could persuade the private sector to develop consortiums and give us something like 50 per cent of the hump costs to be repaid by rents and by the charges for actual services which the consortium would provide, that would solve the problem. New Labour said all that before it took office and that was what it tried to do when it came into office.
Of course, there were a number of problems. I suggest that the first problem—I shall be happy to be corrected—is that it was inherently implausible and counter-intuitive. One had to raise the money in a much more expensive way, the debt had to be serviced, a profit had to be provided and, at the end of the day, it somehow had to be cheaper. That proposal was inherently counter-intuitive.
However, the Government provided two explanations, one positive and one negative. The positive one was that there would be "innovation"—the magic of innovation. I have never seen that word defined; perhaps the Government will define it tonight. Innovation would come from the private sector; what it would do no one could know, but it would transform the situation. Innovation would make matters cheaper, more efficient, more effective, quicker, less likely to fall down on delivery and so on. "Innovation"' was the buzz word. No figures were provided but there was to be considerable innovation.
The negative explanation was that there would be what was called at the time a "public sector comparator". Before becoming involved in privatisation, or in contracting out, or in a PFI or whatever, one would ask the sponsoring department to find out the cost if the work was done in a traditional way. So there would be a public sector comparator. Unless it was shown that the private sector initiative or partnership or PFI was cheaper and gave better value—that phrase was used—than the public sector comparator, it would not go forward. So there was a positive test and a negative test. I believe that that was the theory.
314
What is the evidence that that has happened? What is the evidence that innovation has risen like a flower and solved the situation? What is the evidence that all the public sector comparators were tested carefully and that all projects had public sector comparators and they all passed the test? What is the evidence?
There have been a lot of publications and surveys. This has been a period during which various semiofficial and unofficial research organisations have developed their positions. There have been the Institute for Public Policy Research report, various parliamentary committee reports and the Herculean work of the National Audit Office. How the NAO performs as it does with the number of staff it has I do not know. Various other perhaps more prejudiced or one-sided reports have been published. Most interesting has been the recent survey of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, which is the most representative body of chartered accountants and has a special interest in accountants in the public sector who have been responsible for PFIs.
The IPPR said that we had obtained value for money from a few PFIs. It could not say that about most PFIs. Looking back, the most important thing about the IPPR report was its admission that it could not make a judgment at that stage on whether the system as a whole worked—whether, overall, it produced more benefits than disbenelits. The IPPR then tiptoed out of the room.
I turn to the parliamentary committees, the Select Committees on health, education and transport and, above all, the Public Accounts Committee. On the whole they attacked individual PFIs. They were critical of what was going on. The Select Committee on Transport considered the London Underground, the National Air Traffic Services, and so on. They warned—especially the Public Accounts Committee—about the erosion of the test of the public sector alternative. The Public Accounts Committee said that there was a danger that the Government's enthusiasm to sell PFI would create a "Buy now, pay later", situation. As far as I know, that was the first mention of a danger that the PFI would become "the only game in town".
The National Audit Office produced three or four reports. In all of them, so far as I know—I have asked Ministers questions but I do not get answers—it was equally reluctant to provide overall verdicts on the PFI as it proceeded. It is true that in one report it conducted a survey of the sponsoring departments. The report stated that 81 per cent were satisfied that they had received value for money; only 4 per cent said that they received poor value for money.
I am not trying to undermine the report; it is by far the best the Government have. The point is that it relates to the sponsoring departments. It is unlikely that they would say much else, because they would then be in a rather difficult position. It is hard to avoid calling it the Mandy Rice-Davies defence: "They would say that, wouldn't they?" It is difficult to reconcile with a statement that I recently came across

315
made by Jeremy Colman, a senior official of the National Audit Office. In the Financial Times of 5th June 2002, he stated:
"Public sector comparators suffer from a spurious precision … Value for money exercises",
are,
"pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo where financial modelling takes over from thinking … it becomes so complicated that no one, not even experts, really understands what is going on … people have to prove value for money to get a PFI deal, but because that is wrongly seen to be demonstrated only by the public sector comparator, it becomes everything".
Here is the pay-off:
"If the answer comes out wrong, you don't get your project. So the answer doesn't come out wrong very often".
I do not know the Government's answer to that. All I am saying at the moment is that we do not have much evidence.
The most recent report of the National Audit Office begins to dig up what in another context one might call scandals. For example, when PFIs work and considerable sums of money are available for what is called the refinancing of a PFI, the tendency has been for the consortium not to tell the Government. Only under a few contracts negotiated in the early stages were consortia under any obligation whatever to tell the Government. When that was uncovered in the report, there was a rush into the dovecotes.
I stress that it was possible for the agencies to renegotiate, so that at least now new contracts are negotiated on a 50:50 basis. But that is a kind of scandal. How did we get to a state in which we entered negotiations in which there was nothing in the contract to say that if it was paid off—if it came in under cost—there would be no splitting of the money with the public sector and that the private sector consortium could take away all the cream?
I turn to a final study: the survey of chartered accountants. They were asked whether they thought that PFIs in which they had been directly involved were generally resulting in value for money; 57 per cent said no. That is a sharp contrast with the response from sponsoring ministries. Chartered accountants were also asked whether they thought that the public sector comparator was operated objectively—58 per cent said no. Only 4 per cent of those accountants who had been directly involved in the operation of the PFI said that they "strongly believed" that it had been a good thing.
The most gentle and reasonable conclusion to draw from all this evidence is that the jury is still out on the PFI. We are spending untold millions on that way of adding to our social services, but we do not know whether it is working. At the next election, the Government and the Labour Party will be asked to explain what they have done. If the electorate believe—and they almost certainly will, because it is the way with electorates—that not all of it has worked, or not worked enough, or not worked in their local hospital, or on the railways, we will need an explanation.
316
The explanation must be that we have done our best, that we have tried to find a way through and that, where the PFI turned out not to be 100 per cent effective, we corrected and sought to improve it as we went along. We must have transparency—the jargon word of the day. We must be able to prove that the best has been done. But we do not have the evidence or the institution to provide the evidence. No one is really trying to find out whether we are getting value for money. That must be done; and it must be done now.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord made a fascinating speech. I look forward greatly to reading it because it is about something which I am trying hard to understand and which I certainly do not understand yet. I shall take a different line from that taken by any speaker thus far. I do not know whether my noble friends on the Front Bench will approve of what I say—doubtless they will tell me afterwards.
It seems to me that modern techniques of focus groups and spin enable a government to respond to public opinion at any given moment. They enable them to legislate copiously and, at the same time, to stay popular. What focus groups do not do is to help to identify the deep-down causes of national problems, let alone give a government courage to take a lead and tackle those problems at their roots.
So, after five-and-a-half years in power and no shortage of legislative change, this Government are still popular and spending unprecedented amounts with some notable successes—one of them being to bring down dramatically unemployment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described when she spoke earlier. Yet we find them presiding over a country deeply worried about crime—especially youth crime and drugs—about vandalism, about disruption and violence in schools, about too many miserable environments for inner-city living, and about a health service stretched to its limits.
In the face of that, we have a Queen's Speech which proposes legislation to rearrange how the courts deal with crime, legislation about co-operating internationally in catching criminals and drug dealers, legislation to tackle anti-social behaviour and truancy, to protect the environment and to bring the public closer to planning, and yet more reorganisation of the National Health Service. And today we have heard about a new set of targets and benefit shifts.
No doubt many of the proposed changes will prove positive. We shall see when we come to scrutinise the relevant Bills. But this Queen's Speech deals largely with the symptoms of our nation's problems, not with the problems themselves and their deep-down root causes.
I remind the House of what is certainly one main root cause: the fact that, despite countless ameliorating measures, far too many young people and, indeed, younger adults continue to succumb to behaving problematically. The reasons, we know well, are the insecure setting of many young lives, the lack of support and discipline, and guidance and loving

317
encouragement. Above all, there is the lack of opportunity to learn at home the give and take of everyday relationships that a stable family provides. That poverty of experience too often reflects downwards to the next generation.
Noble Lords know all that, of course. The detail is fresh in our minds—it was much discussed during the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill. There is more divorce and fewer marriages—nearly one-third of marriages are remarriages. Of children with stepparents, 25 per cent are unhappy enough to run away from home. Cohabiting is a rapidly increasing way of family life. We know that. But of unmarried partners having a child, within five years more than 50 per cent split up, many to new partnerships. Twenty-five per cent of all children now live in a family with a single parent, with 15 per cent of those children developing a mental disorder. Thirty-five per cent of children are brought up in relative poverty, seeing on television and among friends lifestyles to which they cannot possibly aspire. And, of course, far too many are brought up in care.
Yet, for all the pressures of modern living, it does not have to be like that. The United Kingdom has more divorces than any other country in Europe with 2.7 divorces per thousand people—the European average being 1.8. We have the most one-parent families—twice as many as in Germany and France. We have by far the biggest teenage birth rate—again, twice as many as in Germany, two-thirds more than in France and five times as many as in the Netherlands.
What can be done? It seems to me that the clock probably cannot be turned back. But, in moving it on, surely a priority must be somehow to return to more stable homes in which children can grow up. Surely the time has come to give couples who are parents—married or unmarried—incentives to commit themselves more strongly and longer term to one another and to their children. More should be done to reduce the tensions, particularly for lone parents, between parenting and work and to make it easier for those who want to stop work for a while and be at home.
It was of course a Conservative government who introduced independent taxation for married couples—the fulfilment of a longstanding aspiration of women and appreciated by very many. But it has resulted in a financial disincentive to marry. Family rates of tax are nearly as high as those for single persons, whereas in Europe parents' tax is at a much lower rate.
Most European countries—Sweden excepted—in some way support marriage through tax. In France, it is mandatory; in most other countries, married couples can choose. In Germany, they can combine their tax allowances; in France and Belgium, joint assessment includes children's income. And in most countries reliefs and payments are linked either with marriage or with proven documented long-term cohabitation.
I personally hope that this Government, with the strength of their parliamentary majority, will have the courage to go beyond focus groups' perceptions and
318
find a way to do two things: first, to formalise more strongly the long-term commitment of parents with children by way of marriage for those who see it simply as a ceremony and by way of non-marriage; and, secondly, to provide incentives for that stronger commitment, particularly using the tax and benefit system.
Of course, that would be only a beginning. But it would, in my view, he a move in the right direction. It is important to realise that most people want to do their very best for their children. Most people want, for the sake of the children, to stick together. They need, when the pressures come—as pressures do, and they can be very heavy—for it to be a more normal, usual way, and they need it to be a way that is recognised by financial encouragement.
If that could happen across this United Kingdom of ours, then perhaps much crime and school disruption, much vandalism, bad community relationships and the bad health that overburdens the health service could be avoided. It seems to me that the sooner the Government look beyond the symptoms and get to the heart of the matter, the better.
6.29 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, before I address my main health theme this afternoon, I should like to anticipate the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, alongside whom I have argued the case for complementary medicine for a good many years. He and I are both officers—the noble Lord for much longer than I—of what is now called the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Integrated and Complementary Healthcare. I am aware of what he proposes to say about the regulation of herbal medicines and vitamin and mineral supplements, and I think that it will save time if I simply associate myself strongly in advance with what he is going to say on this, but possibly not on other medical subjects that he may raise.
In parenthesis, listening with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who has just spoken, I wonder whether she is aware of the extremely interesting study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, in which vitamin and mineral pills were given to young offenders—the noble Lord is aware of that—resulting in a reduction of some 35 per cent in reoffending. This is one of a long line of studies, largely in America, which are achieving increasing validation. It is a very powerful study indeed. It is an interesting add-on, if you like, to other means of dealing with some of the problems in society which is certainly worth considering in the health context.
I want to say a few words about a controversial health topic where legislation has always been in the air. This is the topic of water fluoridation, long advocated by dentists as a means of preventing dental decay. The noble Lord the Minister has been spared my interventions for over a year now, but because of certain recent events I must raise the matter again.
First, some history. The practice of putting fluoride in the water supplies began some 50 years ago in America. Since then this country and a handful of

319
others have followed in varying degrees (some 10 per cent of this country is currently fluoridated artificially). But there have always been scientific doubts, whatever dentists or governments may claim, and three years ago, after much questioning of the evidence, this Government agreed to my request, supported by Sir fain Chalmers from the UK Cochrane Centre, to set up a full-scale scientific review of the evidence from around the world. This was conducted to the highest international standards by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York, and I spent nearly a year on the advisory panel which helped to shape its final report. I must emphasise that this review was, and remains, by virtue of its thoroughness, transparency and systematic approach, the only reliable source of scientific information on the effects of fluoridation.
What it showed was what some of us had suspected: that there was no sound evidence for any of the claims traditionally made for fluoridation. It is the aftermath to the publication of this report that has disturbed me and some of my scientific colleagues from the York review.
It is fair to say that government and the dental and medical professions have had some difficulty, because of their previous beliefs and assertions, in coming to terms with a changed situation; and in the face of much misrepresentation Professor Sheldon from York issued an open letter nearly two years ago to make clear that the effects of fluoridation were still uncertain, and in particular that,
"The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe".
Quite reasonably the Government referred York's findings to the Medical Research Council for advice on how the research agenda should be taken forward in an area of such surprising uncertainty. And here once again, the trouble started.
The MRC was given a remit, before recommending appropriate research and priorities, to advise on the current scientific evidence. But this had already been done by York, with exceptional thoroughness and skill and at no small cost. Some of us from the York review wondered what was going on. When I wrote to the Minister at the time, he assured me that the MRC was only going to "fill in the gaps" of the York review. The MRC reported this September, and it is clear that things were not as the noble Lord had said.
This is not the time or place for a scientific argument. I should simply like to put one or two points to the noble Lord and seek an assurance from him. We have a situation here where one scientific body has gone over much of the same evidence as its more high-powered predecessor, and produced some different conclusions with significantly different implications for public health policy. Whom do we believe? Whom will the Government believe? The areas of difference include: the overall effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing tooth decay—where the MRC actually misquoted York's findings; its ability to reduce inequalities in dental health across social groups; various aspects of fluoride's safety; and the quality of
320
research now needed. Supported by the two leading scientists from the York review I have detailed the major discrepancies in letters to the Medical Research Council and the Chief Medical Officer. The latter has assured me that there is,
"no intention to use the [MRC] report to detract from the York review's findings",
which I take to be an answer consonant with good science. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would confirm this assurance on behalf of his department.
There were some soundly-based and welcome recommendations in the MRC's report, and if I omit the positive things it is only to save time in a busy debate. But there has been rather a sense of "The Empire Strikes Back" in the aftermath to York. I had thought that at last after 50 years we could proceed from a truly authoritative and unbiased verdict on the state of the evidence. But it is astonishing how little it has been taken on board, and how dentists and even doctors can pay lip service to the need for further research, while pressing for new fluoridation schemes, and not see the inconsistency between these two positions.
And this is to say nothing about the non-scientific issues which York flagged but the MRC omitted—the questions of the ethics of giving a medicinal product to millions via their tap-water, and of putting a toxic substance into the wider environment without any real knowledge of its likely effects. I know of at least one European country which has rejected fluoridation for this latter reason alone. I should be interested to know what means the department has in mind for addressing these broader issues, recognising that, as York recorded in a website fact-sheet, the scientific evidence forms only a small section of the total fluoridation debate.
Finally, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could let me know how his department's thinking has developed—if it has—since he last wrote to me about procedures for local consultation, including any future possible legislation, should any communities be unwise enough to want to extend fluoridation in the present state of the evidence. I appreciate that I have asked him a number of questions with very little warning, and if he would prefer to write to me that would be perfectly acceptable.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my remarks on one Bill, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, but will speak briefly on others in passing. I should like to touch on a couple of issues that were not mentioned in the gracious Speech.
First, I wish to discuss mental incapacity. It is now more than seven years since the Law Commission report, more than five years since the Green Paper, Who Decides? and three years since the White Paper, Making Decisions. When can we expect legislation on this important issue and a long overdue reform of the law relating to the most vulnerable people in our communities? Many others in both Houses and

321
outside are agreed on that. Although it is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, it is also most relevant to the Department of Health so I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench can enlighten me.
As I said in May when we debated reforms to the Public Guardianship Office—affecting those with mental incapacity—this Parliament often seems to give greater priority to foxes than human beings. It has again with this legislative programme. That is a sad reflection in my view. I was, however, encouraged to learn that a mental health Bill may be introduced even though Her Majesty the Queen did not specifically mention it. Although there is much to debate about the merits of that particular draft Bill, I am not against its key aim to reform our mental health legislation or even its proposal that some mentally unstable people may have to be compulsorily detained. One wonders, to speed things up a little, whether those two issues which, while quite distinct from one another, are nevertheless related in that they both relate to the condition of the human mind, could not be included as two parts of one Bill. That could be rather like the expected company law reform Bill, another omission from the gracious Speech, which would have covered a range of disparate but connected issues on corporate governance, although I hasten to add that I know that that particular Bill is not within the remit of the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight.
A second issue I wish to raise is that of pensions and savings. It is a hugely important issue and I look forward to the Green Paper but with some reservations. I welcome the assurance from the Minister that much is going on but I worry as the business of pensions and benefits seems to become ever more complicated with each passing year while we read that people are saving less and less for their ever longer lives. No doubt we shall see more pensions legislation in the next Session but I feel that after almost six years we should by now have had our fill of pensions reforms, both state and private sector, yet it seems without resolving the problems or, as I said before, simplifying matters.
There is a full agenda to consider, which includes the following five issues, on which I hope the Green Paper may touch. The first issue, which I have previously raised in this House, involves acknowledging the policy impact across society of our rising longevity. I declare an interest as a former head of Age Concern and chair of the International Longevity Centre-UK. I remain unconvinced that all government departments or business have fully woken up to the policy implications, a point made by the US think-tank, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies, and reported in the Financial Times last Friday.
The second issue is that of enabling older people to stay in the workforce, not just giving them warm words. We do not have much time before 2006, when legislation should have been put in place to ensure that that happens.
322
The third issue is that of tackling related ageist attitudes and assumptions by employers in particular but also in the media and the general public, especially in relation to health and social care, where they must be eliminated. I know that the Government are committed to that. Careful and instant action is needed.
The fourth issue is that of simplifying pensions and savings so that more people understand them, for example by acting on some of the recommendations of the Sandler and Pickering reviews, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. The final issue is that of informing women aged under 52 of the implications of the impending rise in the age for the state pension in just seven years' time.
I turn to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Bill. It has already been introduced in another place but it will be many months before we consider it. In advance of our Second Reading debate on it, I shall set out some of my concerns in the hope that the Minister can reassure me. I have long wanted to see a breakdown of the barriers between acute healthcare services provided by our community's hospitals and non-acute and community care, which is largely provided by social services and other parts of the NHS. They should have, and they deserve, equal status. That is why I welcomed the Statement by the Secretary of State for Health in July in which he referred to the importance that he attaches to community care. I welcome the Government's commitment to spend £1 billion more on that by 2006.
I have not yet formed an opinion on the Bill or decided whether it will work and achieve what it sets out to do. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I, too, am worried about the new perverse incentives that it may create. I am also worried about the new bureaucratic arguments that it may foster and that it will do little for those whom we all want to help: the older people needing care and their families, who need support.
We all saw the unintended consequences of community care policies in the 1990s. Many more people entered residential care, which was often not even in their own community, rather than being cared for in their home. I recognise that the approach is a well-intentioned attempt by the Minister to deal with a severe problem that needs addressing; that is, unnecessarily long stays in hospital by older people. I appreciate that extra money is being given in return for reforms. We all know that hospital is not the right place for such people unless they are critically ill or need acute care. The Bill appears to be as much about improving the performance of social services through a system of fines for poor standards, as about improving services for older people.
We know that the vast majority of older people want to—and can and should—return from hospital to their own home, not to a care home. Many delayed discharges are caused by getting the home care package in place—that involves the fitting of handrails, providing someone to help with the shopping and so on—rather than by a shortage of

323
care-home beds, although that is a particular problem in London and the South East. The NHS cannot wash its hands of responsibility for such matters. If appropriate aftercare is not in place, the older person, as we know, is just as likely to be readmitted to hospital. It is no surprise to learn that some areas with no delayed discharge cases also have among the highest rates of emergency re-admission.
I therefore believe that hospital discharge must be a shared responsibility. The Health and Social Care Act, which was introduced during the previous Session, encouraged joint working and pooled budgets. Might this Bill build a new kind of "Berlin Wall", setting one against the other?
It crossed my mind that the Bill could even be turned on its head. Could we argue that the NHS should pay more of the costs associated with developing appropriate home-care packages so that older people can be discharged when they are ready to leave hospital? After all, we know that the NHS is not formally cash limited but that social services departments are.
I am, however, worried about the opposition of the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as one of its vice-presidents—and about the fact that many other organisations, such as the BMA, the RCN and the NHS Confederation, appear to be unconvinced. Age Concern said,
"it is a short-sighted measure that puts the system before older people".
I very much hope that it is wrong.
My judgment is that social care for older people and their families is already too complicated. Will this Bill really simplify the process? I remain to be convinced, although I am sympathetic to the Government's overall aim.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I shall restrict my remarks to two specific proposals in the gracious Speech, the first of which is the set of proposals designed to enhance care in the community for patients discharged from hospital. Any proposals in that regard are welcome. The ideas about jointly developed discharge plans and an enhancement of services in the community are valuable initiatives. The impact on the hospital service could be significant if they work as intended. That impact would be on the length of stay in accident and emergency departments; on reducing patient waits in hospital, with all the attendant dangers that that brings; and, in turn, on waiting lists to get into hospital. Nowadays, it appears that it is almost as difficult to get out of hospital as it is to get in.
The size of the current problems, which those efforts are intended to resolve, should not be underestimated. Patients are now commonly in an acute medical or surgical ward for six to 12 weeks. That is the norm in many hospitals. Social services are very over-stretched and it is often difficult to get hold of a social worker, for example, to deal with a patient. If the relevant
324
social worker is away on holiday, it is almost impossible to find another to take on the case. There are nowhere near enough places in the community to house patients needing to be discharged. The deficit that the new Bill seeks to remedy is large and will need considerable investment. I am afraid that that cannot be achieved overnight.
Investment in the relevant services can work and has been demonstrated in those geriatric and psychiatric services in which there are dedicated social workers and in which joint discharge plans operate. However, those are rare in the acute medical and surgical fields. That is where we should focus our efforts.
We also need to focus on community facilities for the young and middle aged. For example, it is almost impossible now to place a young stroke victim. My noble friend may cover those details when we discuss the Bill, but the purpose of raising them tonight is to point to the size of the problem that the Government are trying to tackle through these very welcome proposals.
The second proposal in the Queen's Speech is one which, I am afraid, I am somewhat less convinced will improve patient care; that is, the idea of foundation hospitals. I can easily be persuaded that encouraging those hospitals that can show that they give a good service is worthwhile. I should, however, be uncomfortable if the form that that encouragement took led to resources being diverted from less well-performing hospitals to the good ones. That would be an unfortunate result for an egalitarian Government such as this. I wonder whether the Minister is slightly uncomfortable with the considerable support being given by Opposition Benches both here and in another place to the concept of foundation hospitals. I remember that under a previous administration not all was rosy in the NHS garden. I seem to remember hearing for the first time that, "Morale has never been lower" during those heady days.
The desire to free hospitals from stifling central control is admirable. If hospitals are to be released from the myriad of targets and executive directives that is much to the good. I expect that foundation hospitals will have fewer targets and directions, but perhaps my noble friend can say a word or two about whether the less fortunate majority of hospitals will see a reduction in this burden too.
The problems that exist in hospital services lie less in hospitals performing well and much more in those performing badly. If we are serious about tackling these problems, surely we should focus efforts on raising standards in hospitals at the bottom of the scale.
If the NHS was simply a business, we would probably close down or sell off the poorly performing bits of the business. But that is not an acceptable solution when we are talking about a service for patients. It is the patients who suffer if we do not support and improve failing hospitals. Punishing institutions for failure is not an option. In medicine we treat patients who are sick and we put much of our effort there.

325
So, we should certainly encourage the best, but we should avoid any actions that would worsen the plight of the others—for example, by allowing the well off to poach scarce staff by unfair pay deals. So my question to my noble friend is whether particular attention can be given in the proposed Bill to improving the standards of hospitals which are not providing acceptable standards of care for our patients.
The Government have undoubtedly shown their admirably clear intention to improve the health service. It seems only reasonable in that light that they put their efforts where the problems are most severe.
Before I leave the hospital service I should like to put in a plea for another concept; that of the university hospital. The idea here is—as I am sure noble Lords know—that hospitals closely associated with medical schools should be jointly managed by university and trust as a combined approach. Too often these two organisations do not co-ordinate their efforts well enough Occasionally, they are in conflict. Certainly, it is a problem for academic clinical staff who have to serve two masters.
There would be enormous advantages to both the university side—the clinical academics—and the NHS side from much more closely co-ordinated work. That is not a new concept, but it has been frustrated over the years by rules and regulations that are too often unnecessary and, I am afraid, the two government departments—health and education—not working as closely together as they should.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will offer some encouragement to the new interdepartmental committee which he has so invaluably helped to set up, to take up again the university hospital idea. Who knows, it might even be as good at encouraging trusts as the foundation hospital concept—or even better.
Finally, I want to put a tentative toe in the rather murky waters of the unfortunate consultant contract fracas. I realise that consultants are not exactly flavour of the month with the Secretary of State for Health, nor indeed for that matter with many politicians. But I wanted to offer one or two reasons why the consultants might have wished to turn down what on the face of it seems to be an amazingly generous offer of 15 per cent on top of their current salaries. It was certainly nothing to do with an attempt to squeeze even more money out of the Government, and everything to do with the strings that were attached. There must be something significant to turn down such a seemingly generous offer.
Basically, they were unwilling to accept that hospital managers could, as they saw it, demand that they work nights and weekend shifts without any room for negotiation. They perceived that the way that some managers would exert control over the way they worked was too oppressive—especially, when they were already more often than not on call at night and coming in at the weekends, as professionals do and should. They knew that on average they already worked 56 hours a week for the NHS. That is the average across all specialities according to a MORI
326
study. They also knew that they did riot get their consultant posts until they were about 36 or 38 years old and after spending 10 to 14 years as a so-called junior doctor, working day and night in the NHS.
They were upset to be thought of as resisting change and reform when they know that the great majority of innovation in clinical care of patients has been introduced, not by governments nor by managers, but by the doctors. It is not surprising then that the majority of grass-root consultants rejected the contract, not the BMA. Although of course some doctors behave badly at times, it is unreasonable to believe that the majority do so. That would fly in the face of most patients' experience.
I am sorry to have gone on about this matter, but this is a profession that I believe is dedicated to the NHS and we rely on its members to deliver the reforms that we will be discussing. There must be a better way of encouraging them.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. For many years I sat on the council of the Medical Protection Society and he was the president. His experience is much revered in the MPS and has been much appreciated on this side of the House today.
In the gracious Speech, the Government announced an intention to modernise the delivery of healthcare by devolving power and resources given to frontline healthcare staff, building on the Government's commitment to decentralise public services.
In August, David Lammy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, when he introduced the report NHS Dentistry: Options for Change, said:
"The Government is determined to bring dentistry back into the mainstream of the NHS and looks forward to working with the profession to make 'Options for Change' a reality".
I declare my interest as a dentist when I say that the proposed legislation potentially has enormous implications for NHS dental services. I understand that the Bill will place a duty on primary care trusts to provide primary care dentistry to meet the "reasonable" needs of the population. For the first time an NHS body will be obliged to provide dental services, thus bringing dentistry into line with medical services in both primary and secondary care.
Although the report represents a clear view of future strategy and does finally indicate a direction for change, it is not a blueprint for change. The document was largely put together by dentists and now the ideas in it will be tested by dentists in the NHS Modernisation Agency and its modernising dentistry programme that will test out different ideas in different parts of England.
Despite well publicised announcements about better funding—up to £35 million to modernise NHS dental practices and equipment, £4 million for the dental care development fund to help dentists expand their practices and treat more patients, and £18 million to reward dentists who are committed to the NHS—this

327
is not an ongoing arrangement. There seems to me to be very little funding available until the reforms have been shown to work.
Mr Lammy announced that over the three-year period from 2000 to 2003 more than £125 million would be made available to the NHS to improve local services in addition to the scheme introduced in April 1999 to encourage dentists to increase their NHS commitment. So far as I am aware, that money relates only to spending in the salaried services and excludes general dental practitioners who provide treatment for the vast majority of patients within the NHS. The modernising dentistry programme has been allocated only £1 million to set up and run the field sites.
Trying to modernise within existing resources simply will not work. Despite the long-standing NHS dental service provision, there are still areas of social deprivation where oral health is poor. In many of those areas, there is little or no service available, and uptake is poor. Attendance for treatment often occurs only when the patient suffers pain. Forty per cent of practices are not taking on new NHS patients. The present GDS fee scale is described in the policy document as iniquitous, driving,
"high levels of productivity via an outmoded approach".
For many years, dental magazines have had articles offering advice on how to get out of the NHS and how to go private. To encourage practitioners to remain in the NHS, there should be a basic practice allowance, addressing local factors such as property and wage costs, as well as allowing primary care trusts to build up provision in areas that had lacked a dental service and to address the problem of areas with high overheads. Regular payments could be made for regular attenders. For patients who need little treatment but need regular screening and preventive gum treatment, dentists could be paid on some form of regular basis, such as capitation. For new patients or those with an irregular attendance pattern and those who needed advanced treatments, it would be necessary to retain some form of simplified item of service fee scale.
The recent report by the Audit Commission, which is too complex to cover this afternoon, is broadly supported by the British Dental Association. It has advocated many of the findings for years. The BDA and the General Dental Practitioners Association campaigned for an emphasis on prevention and for a review of patient charges. I still hear Ministers saying that the NHS is free at the point of delivery; that is simply not true for NHS dentistry. A high percentage of the treatment cost is borne by the patients, unless they have an exemption.
I am reluctant to mention fluoridation again for fear of restimulating the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, whose views I respect but cannot agree with. If the Government cannot make it available to more than 10 per cent of the country, as is the case at the moment, should not more emphasis be given to fluoridated salt or milk? It is time that the argument was resolved. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the plans for fluoridation are progressing.
328
The impact of primary care trusts on dentistry is an important area for the field sites to consider. In July 2001, the Minister, in response to my plea for a dental presence on the professional executive committee of all primary care trusts, said that he would look carefully at how dentists and dentistry were represented on PCT boards, so that we could be assured that advice on dentistry, including dental public health, could be secured. If Options for Change is to succeed, we must go further. Managed clinical networks are now established in the NHS throughout the UK. That should include dentistry, and the field sites will provide an opportunity to test them out. I am attracted by the BDA proposal for managed dental networks, as a part of individual PCTs. Dental networks could provide a formal network to enable PCT-wide dental care providers to provide a joined-up service for patients. easing their movement through the system and providing improved access to NHS dental services, an improvement in the oral health of the community and a reduction in oral health inequalities.
I turn to some of the problems with European legislation relating to herbal products and food supplements. My interest has already been declared for me by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. In October, at a meeting between the Medicines Control Agency and representatives of the herbal forum, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, responded to the concern about potential over-regulation and highlighted the public health issues that had arisen in the past through the lack of a systemic approach to the safety and quality of herbal medicines. In July, the Minister asked concerned representatives of the herbal sector to send to the MCA specific concerns about the proposed European directive. The agency has been examining the 1,000 or so products submitted. That request came in response to fears that many currently legal products would fall outside the directive's proposed definition of traditional use and would become illegal.
The Minister sought to allay fears about that and called for a dialogue between the MCA and the herbal sector to continue on all the issues that had been raised in response to the directive. He said that the proposed directive could give sufficient flexibility to provide a regulatory home for herbal nutrient combinations. The scope of the current herbal directive is restricted to herbals alone, thereby making many safe and popular products that combine herbals and food nutrients ineligible and excluding many important combination products used in traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine.
Article 16 of the directive requires,
"an assessment of the possible extension of the traditional use registration to other categories of medicinal products",
at a date as yet unspecified. Even if an early date were agreed, such products might, effectively, be outside the EU regulatory system for several years. I hope that the Minister will support an amendment to Article 16 that will allow for the introduction of national rules. I know that he will have been made aware of the specific amendment that has been suggested.

329
Many of the companies in the UK's specialist health product industry are small. The economic impact of the directive will be heavy. The costs incurred in meeting the criteria for plant, machinery and personnel will be high, and the MCA is required to charge fees for product registrations. To continue to be able to supply consumers with the products that they seek, many companies will need to register a considerable number of products. The fees for registration must be kept low, and the development of a national positive list, made up of products with a long tradition of safe use in the UK, should require only minimum regulatory assessment. One example is the MCA consultation on a proposal to prohibit the sale of kava-kava. A final decision is awaited. I ask the Minister not to impose disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on a herbal product in respect of which there is no evidence of a risk to consumer health. Such an action would have serious implications for manufacturers, retailers and consumers.
The food supplements directive has two annexes that list the vitamins and minerals and sources of both that may be used in the manufacture of food supplements. The directive allows for a derogation period for the continued use of vitamins and minerals that are not listed of up to seven years, provided that safety dossiers for their inclusion are submitted to the Scientific Committee for Food within three years from the date of the implementation of the directive. That is an expensive and lengthy process, appropriate for new substances but quite inappropriate for the many missing ingredients with a long history of use that are already accepted as safe by UK regulators. I urge the Minister to encourage argument in Brussels for a system whereby the SCF can accept minimum data requirements for safety dossiers for products with a history of safe use.
Finally, turning to a different subject and declaring my interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Jazz Appreciation Group, I urge the Government to reexamine the Licensing Bill in relation to public entertainment. I am not allowed to speak twice, so I have to mention it this afternoon. Successive governments and Ministers have agreed that current licensing for musicians performing in public is seriously flawed. It seems that the current Bill will change the "two in a bar" rule to "none in a bar". That would be a disaster for thousands of British musicians, particularly young musicians, who have few venues in which to perform.
It cannot be right that broadcast entertainment that can attract significant crowds and cause noise nuisance is exempt, while one unamplified performer will be illegal, unless licensed. I hope that the Government will amend the Bill to pull it back from the regulatory musical abyss that it is in at present.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, following the gracious Speech, the Government's plans to modernise the delivery of healthcare were reiterated by
330
the Secretary of State for Health in the other place. He said that the Government stood where they had always stood—for an NHS that,
"provides patients with care that is free, based on the scale of their needs, not the size of their wallet".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/02; col. 165.]
The NHS Plan also states that care,
"will remain free at the point of delivery—whoever provides it".
Is there a subtle difference in the wording? Is some system of charging or reimbursement in the offing? I do not know, but the debate would detract from important plans—some welcome and some less welcome. As a practising clinician, I found it difficult to restrict my remarks to four areas.
The creation of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—CHAI—should really be called "CHI Mark II". Of course, there must be standards. The drive for quality of care must not be lost to the pressures of financial tracking and accreditation audits which are easier to deal with and, therefore, can hijack the agenda.
All the evidence from organisations around the globe is that quality is pushed up by the approach that CHI has taken and not through punitive measures. To be effective the new CHAI must be completely independent. Widening its remit to include the complaints procedure and the Mental Health Commission is welcome. It should also include the recommendations in the joint report of chief inspectors of the agencies responsible for child abuse and child protection and its recommendations on staff, resources and joint working between agencies if offences against children are to fall.
Foundation trusts are interesting. They remove the hand of Whitehall from the day-to-Clay running of the service and, as such, are to be welcomed. In Committee on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, moved an amendment to create a National Health Service agency for England. I moved a similar amendment to create a National Health Service agency for Wales—I do not believe that I see the Minister laughing at that. However, the idea was to remove the direct management of the NHS from the clutches of Whitehall and politicians. Foundation hospitals may be in the spirit, but the Spaniards have cautioned against them in the BMA News recently.
Those hospitals given the freedom and independence to manage their affairs will be an elite. The three star trusts have "played the game" to reach targets set by Government—targets which are criteria of management and not monitors of quality of care. Meeting targets can be subject to wide fluctuations year on year, can distort other aspects of care provided and do not necessarily represent the best hospitals clinically. However, there seems to be a link between good care and good management. There is a danger that such hospitals will milk away nurses, radiographers, physiotherapists and others in short supply from neighbouring NHS trusts, just as NHS Direct appears to have taken many nurses from the bedside arena.

331
Seven is a magic number, and foundation hospitals have five to seven-year contracts. The longer contract provides security, but it should include flexibility to allow patients to go elsewhere if they wish and for changes in service provision. Primary care trusts are new and coming to grips with their roles and responsibilities. Perhaps details of the commissioning process would be a better marker of stability of the hospital than stars.
The criteria for foundation status should be based on a good outlook and sound partnerships, with a hospital committed to meet the needs of the whole population it serves, including emergencies and those with high risk and high need. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has outlined university hospitals which may answer some of the issues in the Follett report. A commitment to research, education and training is absolutely essential for the future NHS to develop scientifically with evidence-based care, meeting its manpower needs and fit for purpose.
If foundation hospitals fail will they lose their status? If they sell off NHS assets without consulting others, will planning for the future needs of the population become impossible? If they destabilise local services by draining resources, how will the widening gap in care provision be countered? As a foundation hospital is, I understand, a contracting authority for the purposes of Regulation 3(1)(u) of the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991, will it be subject to EU contracting directives?
New ways of working must be evaluated by randomised trial. Results at two years will be revealing. Until the evidence base is there, I am pleased that we shall not have foundation hospitals in Wales and also that we shall be keeping community health councils.
The European courts pose another looming challenge to the NHS. The European Working Time Directive and the SIMAP judgment mean that to avoid sanctions the 48 hour week will need to be in place by August 2004. The latest Royal College of Physicians' census shows that, on average, consultants work 61 hours per week, as compared with 58 hours in 2000. Many would like to reduce their hours but say that they are unlikely to do so because of an adverse effect on patient care and on their colleagues.
Staff numbers do not add up. There are not enough trained specialists and doctors in higher training. The complex diagnostic skills required mean that the care of the very ill can be delegated only up to seniors. It cannot be delegated safely to those less skilled. Mortality is greater in hospitals where medical cover is low. Tonight, each junior doctor will, on average, look after 67 in-patients overnight. One cardiac arrest and one critically ill patient simultaneously can make high quality care almost impossible to achieve. Many hospitals do not have the numbers of staff now and consultant expansion has fallen from 6.1 per cent per annum between 1993 and 2000 to only 3.2 per cent in the past year.
332
Continuity of patient care is becoming impossible, but the recent confidential inquiry into peri-operative death targets shift working as a major risk factor as continuity is lost. No hand-over can substitute for the same doctor looking after the same patient across the course of their acute illness.
Much was publicised about the consultants' rejection of the new contract. Consultants know that there is a monumental shortfall in trained specialists, making the contract unworkable. My colleagues feel distrust of a system of failed initiatives where the managers are under enormous political pressure to deliver against targets. Those targets meet the needs of some at the expense of others. The divisive and now infamous "slide 9" from the Department of Health only reinforced that, splitting doctors from management especially where management is weak. The proposed code of conduct for NHS managers is long overdue.
William Jeffcoate in the Lancet states that doctors in the UK:
"embark on a medical career because they wanted to help people who are sick—not because they are motivated by money. Their primary duty is to the patient and they must not allow this to be deflected by the need to meet other non-clinical objectives. They would have no problem if they trusted that those targets would always be compatible with the needs of their patients. Sadly, UK doctors do not have this confidence".
It has been that concern with the individual and the duty to patients that has driven the universal outcry against part of the previously proposed mental health Bill. The Government are to be congratulated for omitting it from the Queen's Speech. That signals surely a radical rethink. Everyone wants change. The Mental Health Act of 1983, based on the 1959 Act, is out of date. It does not reflect modern therapeutic practice, the voice of users and carers, advocacy and the move to community care. Any new Act must be ethically fair, practically workable and effective.
The previously proposed Bill was none of those. It was based on a concept of public risk rather than on the proper treatment of people with mental illness who had temporarily lost the capacity to make judgments for themselves. My noble friend Lady Greengross has already addressed that comprehensively. Public order was confused with health. In recent years compulsory treatment has increased despite no change in legislation because psychiatrists practise defensively in fear of litigation and blame. It is said:
"better an overcrowded ward than being the subject of an enquiry".
Wards are already overcrowded. Poor environments and staff shortages make them poor therapeutically. Community teams are staggering under the weight of numbers. Do not forget that one in four of the population will suffer treatable mental illness in their lifetime.
The proposed Bill would not have decreased risk, it would have increased it. The number of crimes committed by those with serious mental illness have fallen as a percentage of all homicides during the past 10 years. A child is much more likely to be murdered by parents with a catastrophic event in their lives than

333
by a stranger with mental illness. By stigmatising mental illness, those affected would present later in an illness, if at all. Acute services would be further overwhelmed and unable adequately to assess and care for those in need. Psychiatric internment on suspicion would have broken the service.
Lastly, but very importantly, the diagnostic criteria for dangerous severe personality disorder do not exist. It is not featured in any textbook of psychiatry; it is not a treatable condition. Dangerous severe personality disorder is a civil issue needing criminal justice and a Home Office Bill. Mental health is a health issue and a new mental health Act is indeed needed.
The Government must continue to listen to those doing the job. Just as I did in the previous Session of Parliament, I make a plea for seven years without massive reorganisational change that is not evaluated by hard evidence.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the NHS has been wounded by five-and-a-half years of interference by this Government. One of the few positive things that can be said about their stewardship is that they put some more money in and they plan to put some more in. But few, including those in the NHS, expect that the extra money will solve the problems.
I shall focus today on efficiency in the NHS. It is a somewhat dry subject and I fear that it involves figures and statistics. However, it shows the harm that has been done to the NHS. Noble Lords may remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing public service agreements when he announced his 1998 comprehensive spending review. The PSAs were supposed to be contracts between the Treasury and the spending departments for the departments to deliver specific things in return for the money that was being put into public services.
The Prime Minister told us,
"By publishing clear and measurable targets, we are making it possible for everyone to judge whether we meet them".
The Government's White Paper which published the targets in December 1998 stated that PSAs were,
"commitments by the responsible Minister to those who were affected by public services".
It was supposed to herald a brave new world in ministerial and government accountability.
The department's public service agreement included the NHS achieving efficiency and other value-for-money gains for 3 per cent per annum. It was a clear commitment, not hedged by any qualification, and it said how it would measure it. So how has the department done against that target? In its annual report of 2001, it assessed its progress as,
"slippage—final figure not available".
So it knew it was not on target to achieve the 3 per cent each year but it hid behind the fact that there were no final figures.
334
Let me turn to this year's annual report. This is confusing. First, the department said that the measure was now,
"overall delivery of PSA targets".
There was nothing at all about measuring efficiency gains. But even more surprisingly, under "Progress" it reported that the target was "Achieved". And in justification it said:
"The best measure of health authority efficiency is the extent to which other targets have been met".
I am a simple accountant. I do not understand a target which says that it requires 3 per cent annual efficiency gains and which was not on track in 2001 but is suddenly achieved on a totally different measure in 2002.
Let me translate those weasel words into plain English. They mean, "Last year we thought we were going to miss the efficiency target but we didn't want to own up to it. Now we know that we have missed the target so we are going to pretend that it does not exist and that other targets are the ones that matter". Why the Treasury has let the Department of Health get away with sliding out of responsibility is a mystery.
What has happened to the accountability that the Prime Minister promised us? When Ministers fail to deliver on their commitments, should they not take responsibility? I hope to explain what has really happened to efficiency. I think that what should happen to the responsible Minister will be clear enough—and I should say that I am not pointing my finger at the noble Lord the Minister opposite. There is another person in another place who should take responsibility.
Let me first take noble Lords through what the department's annual report says about efficiency. At page 71 the report gives a hospital and community health services cost weighted activity index. That has been given for many years and it is a standard way of comparing the activity of the NHS and the resource inputs. The report explains,
"A faster increase in activity than in expenditure, after allowing for changes in input costs, constitutes an efficiency gain".
That is just what we were looking for in the PSA target.
The index is reported a bit in arrears, so when this year's departmental report was published the latest figures given were for 1999–2000. Noble Lords might think that a departmental report which gives such out-of-date analysis has something to hide and I shall turn to the more recent figures in a while.
However, the report gave analyses for the 10 years ending 1999–2000. It shows an increase in efficiency of 3 per cent. That is not 3 per cent per annum, like the PSA target set in 1998; it is 3 per cent over the whole 10 years. And so the question is: what was happening in that 10-year period?
The first seven years were under my party. Flow much of the 3 per cent did we account for? The answer is: nearly 11 per cent. Noble Lords will quickly see that this means that for the last three years, for which this Government are accountable, the NHS went

335
backwards in efficiency by some 8 per cent. So the majority of the efficiency gains that we bequeathed to the Government have been squandered.
The story goes on. In 2000–01, the resources available to the NHS increased by nearly 8 per cent in real terms. What happened to activity? Finished consultant episodes, including day cases, went up by less than 1 per cent. One does not have to be a genius to work out that efficiency took another spectacular dive in 2000–01.
What about 2001–02? Spending was set to increase by nearly 9 per cent in real terms. We do not have final figures for activity, but in May this year we were given an estimate which showed that the increase in activity was estimated to be between 0.25 per cent and 1 per cent. So we have another year of major economic loss in the NHS.
The story is always the same. Under this Government, far from meeting a target of 3 per cent efficiency gains each year, the NHS has been going backwards at at least that rate. We know why that has happened. The Government have pursued an agenda of relentless restructuring. GP fundholders were abolished and replaced by primary care groups. Then primary care trusts, once claimed to be voluntary, were imposed. Health authorities were compulsorily merged and then replaced by so-called strategic health authorities, which have no strategic function whatever. NHS trusts were placed in a tight grip of central control, although a privileged few may now be allowed to escape as foundation hospitals. What has all that achieved?—organisational turbulence, plummeting morale and restructuring costs, and for no gain whatever.
The Government claim to have abolished the internal market, but all they did was to institutionalise rigidity in the funding system. Belatedly, they are now reinstating some of the flexibilities in their new financial flows initiative. What has all that achieved? Patient choice went out of the window, together with patient responsiveness.
The Government have used a lot of fancy words to describe what they are imposing on the NHS: "co-operation", "partnership", "network", "modernisation" and so forth. The fanciest set of words is "performance management". What has this achieved?—the kind of performance that has people waiting in A&E departments far longer than they were in 1996, and still more than 1 million people on the waiting lists.
The Government have made many promises about money being directed to specific activities—£50 million for palliative care, £100 million for IT, £300 million for counter services and so on—but most of it did not get there. What has this achieved?—another string of broken promises and loss of trust.
The Government have created many quangos—I last counted about 20, plus several hundred patient forums—some of which have inspection or audit roles. Most of them impose burdens on the NHS, and we are
336
promised more quangos in the next health Bill. What have they achieved?—a lot of jobs for cronies and a lot of interference for the NHS.
Before the 1997 election the Labour Party bragged that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. Saved for what?—saved to be subjected to the most wasteful period of experimentation in its history. The Government have no idea how to get the NHS to work well. Their only idea is to throw money at the NHS in the desperate hope that some will stick and hold it together. Unless the Government learn from their mistakes—and do so quickly—we shall see further periods where money will be wasted. The money will disappear into a black hole created by the Government's own ineffective and misguided policies.
Like most noble Lords, I value the NHS and want it to be great. Under this Government the NHS is in a downward spiral, and that is a matter for the most profound fear and regret.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I feel optimistic about the health service. I am delighted that the Government remain committed to modernising the delivery of healthcare based on those founding principles of the NHS which are so dear to many of us, especially those who, like me, owe their lives to the NHS.
The Health and Social Care Bill will shortly be before us and we shall, as ever, have many long and significant debates about the proposals contained in it. Feelings run high in the House, and quite rightly, about the principles of devolving power and resources to front-line staff, about giving greater freedom to certain institutions while increasing their accountability, and about proposals for regulation and inspection. I very much look forward to these debates but, in the interests of brevity, I shall refer only to foundation hospitals and local authority support for older people awaiting discharge.
The Government have, in my view and in the view of many of those who work in the NHS, made huge strides towards making it much more patient centred than it has ever been hitherto. Your Lordships may perhaps remember that this was the most important lesson I learnt from my own prolonged stay in the Middlesex hospital last year—that at all levels of staff, medical, nursing and ancillary, there is nowadays a great deal more emphasis on communicating with the patients, asking their opinions and engaging their commitment than was the case when I was previously a patient some years ago.
I am convinced, therefore, that the Government's commitment to the principle of patient first, to which lip service has long been paid, is now much closer to being a reality. If foundation hospitals are to be a further extension of giving patients more power in decisions about their own treatment, I support the idea.
Some criticism has been voiced of the idea in case the proposals lead to a two-tier system. We have to understand that, in some senses, we already have a

337
two-tiered—or, perhaps more accurately, a several-tiered—system when it comes to hospitals. Everyone knows that in, for example, a London teaching hospital you are more likely to have access to a wider range of skills, experience and treatment than in an ill-equipped hospital in a community setting which finds it difficult to attract the right staff.
I am greatly in favour of the proposal for the stakeholder councils which will govern these new style hospitals as I feel this will surely be another important step along the road to placing decisions about the health needs of a community in the hands of the community itself, ensuring greater accountability and much better evaluation of the outcomes for patients. It is, I believe, too easy to consider output when it comes to evaluating health services when what really matters is what the actual outcome is from the patient's point of view.
The New Opportunities Fund, the largest of the lottery distributors, which I chair, has put in place the most extensive evaluation process for its healthy living centre programme which covers issues such as the overall health improvement of a community. I am sure that stakeholder councils will wish to do the same. Indeed, through the Department of Health, we shall be more than willing to share our experience, if that will be helpful.
I imagine that the department will be especially interested to see how the encouragement of taking exercise, in no matter what form, education about lifestyle choices and knowledge about healthy eating is developing through this programme, and how our fruit in schools programme and our major programme in physical exercise for schools and community are affecting the health of communities. I hope that the foundation hospitals will be pioneers and innovators in addressing some of these issues.
My reservations—and no doubt we shall have many opportunities to debate this—centre around the dangers of further aggravating geographical disparities in the provision of hospital care and the danger of too much specialisation, leaving a community without adequate cover across the full range of its services and needs.
Another problem with the proposal is that it may encourage us in the danger of slipping back into thinking that the health needs of the community are served by its hospitals when the vast majority of healthcare is provided by primary care and community services. We have, I believe, made excellent progress in getting that idea across to both the health service and the public at large, and I would not want this focus on hospitals to impede that progress.
I turn now to the proposal for charging local authorities for delayed discharges. I am sure that there are some merits in the proposal, and it will surely concentrate the minds of some local authorities, but we have to understand that there is absolutely no substitute for adequate discharge planning. I seem to have been banging on about this all my working life—indeed, I wrote my first book about it in 1977—and sometimes I despair of it ever getting any better.
338
Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I am particularly concerned about the effect of these proposals on patients' families, their carers. It is absolutely essential to ensure that these most vital of all providers of any kind of care in the community are not put under more pressure to take home people who are not ready for discharge just to free up a hospital bed.
While I am talking about carers, and as I see that my noble friend is in her place, I must take the opportunity to acknowledge the improvements in carers' benefits which have taken place in recent years—for example, access to the state second pension and the huge increase in the earnings disregard. This is largely thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lady Hollis.
My concern about the delayed discharge proposals is that in some cases they might exacerbate bad and poor practice rather than improve it. The fear is that carers will not be involved, consulted or properly assessed before the person they are about to care for is discharged from hospital. Research by Carers UK found that between 1998 and 2001 the number of carers who did not have their concerns taken into account rose from 36 per cent in 1998 to 45 per cent in 2001. The proportion of people being cared for who had to be readmitted—this is a very important figure—within two months because they had been discharged too early rose from 19 per cent in 1999 to 43 per cent in 2001—we should take careful note of that figure—and 43 per cent of carers were not given sufficient help on the patient returning home. Comments showed that even if support was promised, it did not seem to be delivered. Carers often had to make numerous telephone calls to secure the support that they had been promised, and in several circumstances the support did not materialise at all.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that, if these proposals go ahead, safeguards will be written in to protect carers from undue pressure to take someone home. For example, a duty could be placed on the trust and local authority to ensure that carers are consulted and offered an assessment.
I suggest that the Government could update and reissue the statutory guidance on hospital discharge. They have already pledged to update the hospital discharge workbook. It would be good to have further information about when this will be published.
I look forward to debating these and other important issues as the Bills reach this House, and to working together in this House. as we do so successfully, to ensure that all the proposed changes bring about what we all seek most—real benefits for patients and their families.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I welcome the Government's priority in the gracious Speech to continue to modernise the delivery of healthcare based on access that is free according to need rather than the ability to pay. Better access to the National Health Service is dependent on good information for potential users, comprehensive facilities that are open during hours

339
when patients can conveniently use them appropriately, and adequate numbers of trained staff with an understanding of the local population they serve. Such healthcare services are still not generally available throughout England, particularly to people living in deprivation in our cities. I shall focus on primary care trusts, foundation trusts and the strengthening of the inspection of NHS trusts.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director and vice-chairman of a primary care trust on Merseyside serving 220,000 residents, one in four of whom live in five electoral wards that are among the 20 most socially deprived in England. They are: Bidston, Birkenhead, Leasowe, Seacombe and Tranmere on the Wirral peninsula south of the River Mersey.
A number of changes took place at the beginning of the current financial year to shift the balance of power from health authorities to primary care trusts (PCTs). I welcome this legislation, which has devolved power and resources to front-line staff. But the expected outcomes of this excellent and innovative policy have been hampered because many PCTs have inherited debts accumulated by their predecessor district health authorities which were abolished in April this year. These debts impede the ability of PCTs to address the public health needs of their residents, particularly those living in postcode areas of deprivation. These include: help to improve their diet from birth by increasing breast feeding; fresh fruit for children; encouragement to adults, particularly young women, to stop smoking; and a reduction in teenage pregnancies. The burden on PCTs is further increased because, by statute, it is illegal for them to carry over debts into the next financial year.
As a result of this rule, priority has been given to consultation with neighbouring PCTs and acute hospital trusts on how to handle the debt rather than in essential partnership with local authorities and other agencies on initiatives that can make a significant difference to the health and well-being of disadvantaged people living in deprivation. The aim of our PCT is to change these areas now marked in red on the map into areas of better health colour-coded green.
The Birkenhead and Wallasey PCT has recently proposed a three-year plan of debt repayment to our strategic health authority. This plan involves spreading the PCT's debt to our acute hospital because hospitals are permitted to carry over deficits into the next year.
But our acute NHS trust is a three-star hospital that is likely to lose a star if its annual accounts show debt. The hospital trust has aspirations to apply for foundation hospital trust status which will be thwarted because it has to help our PCT to solve this legacy of debts incurred before the PCT came into existence. In spite of these problems, my PCT has reduced waiting times for patients to see a GP to 48 hours in 37 of our 40 GP surgeries since April. So great advances can take place in a very short time.
340
I therefore look forward to the Minister's reply on how financial burdens may be reduced in order that modernisation of services may take place sooner rather than later to make a difference to our residents living in deprived districts.
In this regard, I await information on the funding formula for people living in deprivation. I welcome the Government's promise to give PCTs three-year budgets so that we can plan improvements in the way we work for the benefit of our needy population. Time is of the essence because all our deprived districts in Wirral have most of our children when compared with better-off districts.
If we do not intervene soon, particularly in the first five years of a child's life, we shall have condemned our children to an unhealthy adulthood and to lives of unfulfilled potential. We cannot afford to allow this to happen in a Britain with an increasing proportion of older people who are living longer.
If PCTs were not distracted by negotiating their debts, they could pilot greater patient choice for the treatment of chronic conditions. For example, the pain of arthritis and other degenerative disorders can be successfully controlled by complementary therapies such as acupuncture. This could also reduce the budget for pain-killing drugs and save patients being exposed to complications from long-term drug therapy. In this connection, I declare an interest as the independent chairman of the Acupuncture Regulatory Working Group currently in discussions to produce a report to be submitted to Ministers.
The Government's proposal to give greater freedom to successful hospitals while increasing their accountability to local communities is another area that is likely to hamper improvements in healthcare services in areas of deprivation.
Successful hospitals are those with three-star status because they have fulfilled targets set by the Department of Health on waiting times and the treatment of sick patients. Primary care trusts are held accountable if acute hospitals do not achieve their targets.
In our acute hospital trust in Wirral, future patient needs will require more beds and new wards will need to be built if we do not change the way in which we work. Our PCT is proposing that we innovate so as to improve care in the community and by following up patients discharged from hospital in primary care rather than increasing bed capacity in our hospitals.
The attraction of foundation hospital status may run counter to the modernisation that we propose, because hospitals will find it more attractive to increase their capacity. This is a worry that PCT boards would like Ministers to address.
Finally, I welcome the proposal to introduce an independent health inspectorate. The undoubted success of the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is something of which the Government can be justly proud.
The new independent health inspectorate, which will combine the best practices of CHI in its clinical governance review of hospital trusts with the functions

341
of the Audit Commission, is to be welcomed. I hope that this development will lead to a stronger inspectorate that can offer help to all NHS trusts to implement best practice, including those for equal opportunities in the employment of a diverse workforce as well as equal access to all, including ethnic minority groups and the disabled.
The inspectorate will ensure that all NHS trusts provide appropriate care to all who use their services. I look forward to the inspectorate's influence to improve the provision of trained interpreters for all patients who are not fluent in English in GP clinics and in hospitals. By auditing the ethnic mix of patients in diabetes clinics, for example, staff should provide better care for ethnic minority groups who are at a higher risk of developing this disease and all its serious complications, such as renal failure and an increased need for kidney dialysis and kidney transplants. All this treatment is very expensive, and it is projected that it will cost the NHS billions of pounds. I hope that the inspectorate will not only improve standards of NHS healthcare but prevent many patients from developing serious complications that would severely increase the cost of healthcare.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Like him, I shall focus my initial remarks on the Government's programme for health, but I will add a few comments on pensions. Like some of my colleagues on these Benches, I welcome the Government's belated conversion to the notion of independent fund-holding hospitals. Like others, I detect stronger support for it on these Benches than on the Government's own Back Benches.
Against the forensic analysis of statistics set out by my noble friend Lady Noakes, my criticism is that the Government have not gone far enough and do not intend to go quickly enough in pressing forward in this new direction. However, I welcome the recognition that I think I detect from the Government, at last, that running a health service of 1.5 million people as a nationalised state monopoly simply does not work. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, talked about the founding principles of the NHS. In 1945, Nye Bevan said that the objectives of the health service were to provide the medical profession with the best and most modern apparatus in medicine, enabling them freely to use it to the benefit of the people of this country. He said:
"Every doctor must be free to use that apparatus without interference from secular organisations".
The trouble with running the NHS as a nationalised industry, as it has been run for the past 40 years, is that, like every other nationalised industry, it promotes a culture of managing upwards to meet the targets and directives set from above rather than responding at local level to people's needs. The plethora of central initiatives and central controls acts as a block on local initiatives. If we are ever to get efficiency and better patient care in the NHS, just as we learned that we could not run telephone systems or steel industries as
342
a nationalised industry, we must return to the pre-1948 structure of the health service based on local independent voluntary and charitable organisations. Fortunately, the Government have already started to do that. These organisations would he run by professionals for the benefit of patients in the way that Nye Bevan set out in his vision.
We will need to see the legislation to understand whether the Minister's promise of fully independent hospitals is lived up to in practice. I have my suspicions, but I am hopeful. We will wish to ensure, so far as we can, that the legislation provides for that. Since the Government are now on to a good thing, I encourage them to set out a timetable to go much further—a timetable to enable more hospitals to benefit from the status of being fully independent voluntary and charitable trusts.
That, of itself, is only part of the answer. Reform of the supply side alone is not enough, when we continue to have a state monopoly of healthcare purchasing—a monopsony, in effect. So long as there is a single purchaser of healthcare, purchasing will still he used to enforce centralised targets, priorities and initiatives. The truth is that supply rationed by bureaucracy always disadvantages the weakest members of the community. Whether it is a Soviet state trying to supply housing or the borough of Hackney trying to provide social services, it is the weakest who always fall victim to state bureaucracy. That happens because it is those who are most articulate and most capable of finding their way through the system who can get treatment out of a rationed bureaucracy. The least articulate and the least able have the least power. The Minister is shaking her head, but there is a raft of relevant statistics, which I will quote to her on another occasion. The NHS Executive itself has published a report to show that someone in social class 5 is far more likely to wait for more than three months for treatment in the NHS than someone in social class 1. It is a huge advantage to be articulate and able to work one's way around state bureaucracy.
PCTs may help. For some of the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, I suspect: that they will not provide the whole answer. The only way to provide the level of effectiveness that the NHS needs, alongside freeing up the supply side, is to create real customer power, or patient power. I am not talking about dismantling the NHS and replacing it with private insurance; I am simply talking about recreating the NHS in the image that Nye Bevan envisaged. This would be done by allowing patients to take their part of the NHS budget—an NHS credit, if you like—and apply it in a way that would give them power and choice over the kind of healthcare they receive. Rather than have an NHS monopsony, patients could use their NHS credit in one of various independent healthcare management organisations that would then contract with the hospitals and primary-care agencies, competing to provide the best healthcare possible.
Until we grasp that nettle and remove all vestiges of centralised state monopoly out of the health service, we will unfortunately continue with such inefficiencies as those my noble friend regaled us with. I recognise

343
that such a change cannot be brought about overnight. But now that the Government have started on this path of reform, I encourage them to think about going the whole hog and addressing the idea as part of their plans.
Beyond what I said about health, my one criticism of the Government is that the biggest social welfare issue that this country faces is dealt with wholly inadequately in any of the Government's plans so far. I recognise that a Green Paper is promised soon, but I detected a note of complacency in how the Minister addressed the issue in her opening remarks.
We have an ageing population. More and more of the population will become dependent on retirement funds. In 15, 20 or 30 years' time, the funding required for that will not exist; we are grossly underfunded. The Government's own estimates of the liabilities to pay for the future basic state pension add up to more than £1,000 billion, which should be declared on their balance sheet. To that we must add the extra cost to taxpayers of paying the second state pension that we heard about. It has good aims, but it will result in additional cost to taxpayers. I fear that even with the state second pension, there will not be enough coming out of the state purse to meet the expectations of many people when they retire.
Let us be clear. We are talking primarily about people in the lower half of the income distribution who will face these problems, because they do not have enough savings. As my noble friend Lord Fowler said earlier, we are in danger of creating two nations, because those in the lower half of the income distribution often do not have their own savings to supplement what they can expect from the state. There are a number of reasons for that. First, in many cases they cannot afford to put much aside. Secondly, as the Minister has recognised, for many of them, at least recently, it may not have been economically sensible to put money aside. If they got best advice from a financial adviser they would be told that it was not sensible for them to save, because any funds that they accumulated would be knocked off their minimum income guarantee and they would be worse off. I note the Minister's reassuring words about the impact of the state pension credit. I recognise that that may help to ameliorate the problem. However, I doubt that it will be enough to make it truly worthwhile for people who do not have very much to save enough to make a difference.
A further problem is the cost of compliance. For the insurance and pension companies it has not been economic to try to sell products to the lower income group. Although stakeholder schemes were aimed at the poorest part of the income distribution, they have failed to achieve what was intended because it is not economic to distribute products on a small scale to small savers.
If we do not tackle all those problems, I fear that we shall have a ballooning legacy of costs for the next generation that is not addressed by any of the Government's proposals. I do not suggest that I can offer solutions to all those problems tonight, but I have
344
two brief suggestions that the Government might like to pick up in their Green Paper, if it is not too late. My first suggestion, which has been made in other quarters, is the notion of a top-up for people on low incomes who make pension contributions. For every £1 that they put away, the state could put an additional £1 in their pension bucket. That would seize the imagination and would enable people to see that they were getting a real accumulation of money that they would not get if they did not save for themselves. Secondly, allied to that proposal, we should allow people to move that part of the state pension fund that is attributed to them into their personal pension pot. To do that, the Government would simply crystallise the liability that they currently have for that state pension, issue debt to the individual to be put into their pension pot and, over time, allow the individual to invest that in other assets where they might get a higher return. Over and above that, it would be a real incentive to the individual to see that they had a bucket of money to which they were adding rather than starting from scratch.
Those are two ideas to put into the Green Paper considerations. Something bold and imaginative will be needed to avoid facing a real pension crisis for future generations.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Blackwell in discussing the strategic challenges that lie ahead in providing a framework for savings and pensions over the next 25 to 50 years. I begin by declaring an interest. I am a trustee of two final salary pension schemes and the chairman of the trustees of one of them. These final salary schemes are now closed to new entrants. Before I fall into the category of welshers described by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, let me make it clear that we intend to fulfil all the obligations to those who are still contributing and those who are in pension.
Why have we had to close the schemes? Three reasons spring to mind. The first is the continuing sharply rising cost of administration. The second is the Financial exposure to our parent company—our employer—through the provisions of FRS 17, as we live in a time of extreme stock market volatility. One of our funds lost 15 per cent of its value in the last quarter. It is a perfectly sensibly administered fund. It is in a tracker fund. It is not anything very dramatic. However, the exposure for the employer has become very great. Thirdly, I am concerned as a trustee that we might begin to make promises to people that we would subsequently find that we could not fulfil.
The pension scheme relates to a manufacturing business. It is a very good pension scheme. However, amid the fusillade and torrent of statistics given by the Minister at the start of the debate, one thing cannot be concealed: the Government have been extraordinarily careless with the manufacturing base of this country. We are now facing a contribution rate of 35 per cent in the scheme—for every £1 that we pay, we have to put

345
35p into the pension scheme. That cannot now be afforded given the Government's policies towards the manufacturing sector.
I see at first hand the difficulties and perhaps the crisis facing the pensions industry. Some of those reasons, such as increased longevity, are clearly not of the Government's making. While it is a matter for private delight that people are living longer, there is a public cost, not least in pension funding. However, the Government have contributed significantly to the worsening of the crisis, in some ways by sins of commission and in others by sins of omission.
The greatest of all the sins of commission, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was the raid on the pension funds by the changes in ACT. To change the basic terms under which people save for their pension mid-way through a savings plan is an outrageous breach of public trust. If a similar action had been undertaken in the private sector, there would rightly have been a widespread outcry.
As has been pointed out, the change has drained £5 billion a year out of pension funds. The Prime Minister defended it at the time by saying that a buoyant stock market had given better returns than expected. That was then. If you had put your money into the FTSE 250 share index on 1st January 2000, it would now be down 42 per cent. In the light of that, does the Prime Minister now intend that the Government return the money? I think not.
The second problem is the increasing burden of regulation. It has fallen on companies and has been particularly damaging to smaller companies running final salary schemes. However, it has also fallen on trustees, who feel increasingly exposed. There is an interesting article in today's Financial Times headed, "On the hoard, a good man is hard to find". It is written by a lady, so I imagine that it also means that a good woman is hard to find. It is about the dangers for outside directors and trustees. It says:
"Nowadays, outside directors sense that they are more likely to become a casualty of a future scandal than to prevent that scandal".
The article also points out:
"By far the strongest deterrent to board service is the very general 'name in the newspaper' factor".
Then there is the rising tide of form-filling and bureaucracy. No doubt much of it is worthy in intent, but of how much practical significance I know not. Some noble Lords may have heard the interesting interview recently broadcast on Radio 4 with the Abbot of Downside, who is retiring as headmaster of that distinguished school. In the programme, he referred to the emergence of what he called the "geek" culture—that is to say, tick the boxes, fill in the right forms, and you will have covered your backside and you will be okay.
The Government have also added their own list of complexities with the steady expansion of means-tested benefits, about which we have heard much this evening. Those of us who had the pleasure of taking part in the proceedings on the State Pension Credit Act
346
saw this in spades—a worthy enough objective in danger of being lost in a fog of regulation. When reform could have been introduced to improve the situation, the Government have too often fluffed the opportunity. The planned reform of annuity provision in a way that would enable people to plan for their own needs, as opposed to being forced to take actions that may well not be in their best interests purely on the basis of an arbitrary date or age, seems to be an opportunity sadly missed.
But perhaps most damaging to public confidence has been the Government's attempt to deny any responsibility for the position in which we now find ourselves. Everyone else has been blamed: the City has been blamed for being short-termist; the employers have been blamed for being hard headed, and welshers; the pensions industry has been blamed for being rapacious; and, when that does not work, the previous Conservative government have been blamed for the inheritance. The combination of all those factors has led to a comprehensive undermining of people's confidence in the value of long-term saving. The result is a savings ratio that has fallen steadily and halved since this Government took office from 9.1 per cent to 5.4 per cent.
The Government should now be guided by three important principles that should form the basis of what will appear in the Green Paper. First, they need to allow flexibility; secondly, they need to give clarity a strong framework; and, thirdly, they need to be honest, above all, about what can or cannot be achieved. As regards flexibility, the Government need to trust people to use their savings in a way that suits them, provided that enough remains in their personal savings pot to enable them to stay above welfare levels. The latter does not mean just reforming the annuities legislation; it means enabling people to use their other savings flexibly. I have in mind ISAs—withdrawing and replacing the ISA because people have different needs: they need to spend but they also need opportunities to save.
Secondly, there is the need for clarity. The huge range of complex means-tested benefits needs to be reduced by focusing on the basic state pension. The cost of administering these means-tested benefits is huge and, because of the complexity involved, they too often fail to reach people who most need them. Moreover, in the interests of clarity, the Government should consider permitting individuals to deduct fees for professional financial advice from their tax payable. Without this change, people will inevitably continue to choose to have their charges deducted from their premiums. This will mean that we shall continue to have product bias.
Of course, none of that will happen. The noble Baroness opened the debate arguing cogently and persuasively, as is always the case. But she knows, and we know, that the real obstacle to pension and savings reform does not lie in her department; it lies in the Treasury. The Treasury may weep tears over the declining savings ratio, but they are crocodile tears. Its

347
concern, its age-old obsession, is about tax leakage. That is why the Treasury will oppose any such changes.
Thirdly, the Government must come clean and be honest. They must stop trying to make people think that if only 30 out of 80 years of life are spent working—that is to say between the ages of 25 and 55—pensions can be provided on exactly the same basis that applied when people worked for 40 or 45 years out of 70 years of life. They need to stop trying to make people believe that certainty can be achieved. Funding over 50-plus years in today's volatile world is inherently uncertain. An actuary friend of mine compared his job of forecasting retirement pensions to trying to lower a ping-pong ball on the end of a fishing line into a bucket 25 yards away in a force nine gale.
If the Government are clear, flexible, and honest, people will be encouraged to make the additional savings necessary to give them a comfortable old age. But on the record to date, one cannot be optimistic.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I begin by making my customary declaration of interest in that I work for Age Concern. The debate on the gracious Speech is perhaps one of the most interesting points in the parliamentary calendar. I very much welcome the changes that we have made this year as regards the way in which we have improved the structure of the debates compared to previous years. That struck me particularly when listening to the wonderful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with his apposite and moving comments about AIDS. On whatever day the draft plan for Africa was being discussed, I suspect that the subject of AIDS would have been mentioned. That highlights some of the remaining structural problems with these debates. As the noble Lord so rightly said, we can no longer turn our backs on problems in Africa.
The gracious Speech provides an opportunity to stand back and consider the extent to which joined-up government has become a reality. It is also a moment when those of us who provide effective opposition are challenged to do so outwith the restrictions that apply to debates on specific legislation. This year's debate on the Loyal Address has given those of us on these Benches a welcome opportunity to set out our own approach to the funding, the delivery and, crucially, the governance—a word which has not been heard today—of health and social care.
For the past 20 years, this Government and their predecessor have grappled with a key issue: how to fund old age. Both governments have sought to address the issue against a background of real reductions in state pensions. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, set out the plethora of initiatives which this Government have introduced, but she neatly side-stepped the issue of the real level of the basic state pension. She mentioned one of the key themes which I should like to talk about today, complexity, but she avoided a central concern—the
348
crisis in private and company pensions, which was expertly explained by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay.
Governments have tried in various ways, both negative and positive, to increase private provision for retirement income. For some, it has taken many years for the message to get through that any state pension they might receive will not sustain the standard of living that they envisaged. Currently, those who have been prudent and saved, often in company or private pension schemes, are looking at the closure of final salary schemes and starting to lose faith. For the past decade, for many investment in property has been a far more attractive option, offering a higher rate of return and certainty about the control of assets. However, with the property market surging at a seemingly unsustainable rate in some parts of the country, one wonders how long it will be before those who invested in property as a security for retirement also find themselves staring at an extremely bleak future.
This Government and their predecessor—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, might concede—have returned time and time again to one fundamental issue: how to cope with increasing demand for health and care services; with demand for new and effective but costly treatments; and with greater demands from an increasingly older population who are living longer. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was a first attempt to align health spending with what was then called community care spending. At that stage, however, a fundamental decision was taken which created an in-built flaw in health and social care planning which has persisted ever since: the decision to concentrate resources on acute conditions and high dependency. Only this year, that policy was reinforced in the fair access to care services guidance in which commissioners were told to allocate people to four eligibility bands—critical, substantial, moderate and low needs.
The guidance explicitly states:
"Councils should prioritise needs that have immediate and longer term critical consequences for independence ahead of needs with substantial consequences".
It is doubtful whether any authority in the land seriously envisages making any provision whatever for low-level needs. Yet there is evidence—cited, among other places, in the National Service Framework for Older People—that low-level interventions which enable older people to manage their own lives independently pay massive dividends in the avoidance of acute care and in continued mental health.
Such thinking on the subject of managing demand was the starting point for a policy paper on the public services which the Liberal Democrats developed and adopted earlier this year. We saw our task as policymakers as the need to develop systems which enable the development of services that meet needs effectively, appropriately and—above all—sustainably. We realised that the best way of reaching effective solutions would be to enable users,

349
practitioners and those in the local community who know the real problems and issues to develop frameworks and solutions that work.
We also realised that this approach, if it was to work, would have to be based on various important requirements, the first of which is agreement on basic minimum service standards, discussed and negotiated from the bottom up, not the top down. Secondly, adequate resources, coupled with local tax-varying powers, need to be in place nationally. Thirdly, democratic local control and accountability of decision-making must be coupled with an effective flow of information and evidence. It is on that basis that we on these Benches judge the two main health and social care measures in the gracious Speech, on foundation hospitals and delayed discharge. I have to say that, on that basis, we have found some very big holes in both pieces of legislation.
The proposal for foundation hospitals was trailed as long ago as last May. From the outset it has been clear that they are destined to be entities built on contradictions. They are to be selected from hospitals that have gained three stars by meeting centralised targets. Whether or not they have succeeded in meeting local health needs, or have simply met arbitrary targets for waiting list management, they are to be handed over to public benefit organisations. As I listened to the noble Baroness reel off the official line on waiting times, I could not help but note that the time that it takes to get on to some waiting lists—for example, for minor surgical procedures or for outpatient services such as audiology—did not get a mention and yet the preventive value of such services is commonly agreed to be high.
As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, foundation hospitals will provide services that are commissioned largely by PCTs and the funding of PCTs is determined by their ability to meet targets which are set in Whitehall. In view of that, the notion of local accountability begins to seem unreal.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, made an eloquent speech. I took to heart his point about health inequalities and the question that people in the NHS have about how a system as currently set up for hose hospitals that already perform well can possibly work to reduce health inequalities. As the governance of those hospitals will be turned over to communities, I believe that in areas where there are more articulate people with time, energy and resources to become involved in the running of the hospitals, that is bound to lead to some of the problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
One aspect of this sudden and somewhat unconvincing rush to decentralise is the proposals on delayed discharge. The Government's proposal is part of just one of a series of initiatives that first arose in the Wanless report. Noble Lords may remember the Wanless report, which was commissioned by the Treasury and which was produced earlier this year. Referring to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, it is interesting to note
350
that many reports often lie about for a long time before they are given a response, but this one was picked up within 24 hours.
I say it is only part of the response because the Wanless report advocated three points, only one of which the Government have chosen to implement. First, Mr Wanless stressed that it is impossible to make accurate predictions about future healthcare demands without a thorough analysis of future need and patterns of provision of social care. He advocated that there should be a strategic view, a recommendation on which there has been silence. Will the Minister say whether future social care reforms will be based upon such a strategic view, or are we to expect a series of piecemeal measures?
The Secretary of State in another place in his speech to the National Social Services Conference on 16th October stated that the strategic commissioning group chaired by Jacqui Smith will produce a report on how local and community groups can take a bigger part in the delivery of services. That is not the same as an analysis of need, but it is an important element of working out the future of the whole health and social care economy, so I ask the Minister to update us on the progress made on that.
Secondly, there is the matter of the disappearing measure from the Wanless report. It advocated a system of fines to local authorities, but it did so in conjunction with a system of fines for hospitals where re-admissions were deemed to be the result of inappropriate discharge. The Government must have seen some merit in that proposal because it is included in Chapter 8 of Delivering the NHS Plan. However, more accurately, over the course of the summer that proposal disappeared. I simply ask the Minister: why? My honourable friend in another place Mr Paul Burstow has produced evidence of re-admission rates growing at an alarming pace—up 18 per cent in the past two years. Moreover, voluntary organisations, such as my own, are beginning to detect patterns where re-admission rates climb in the same areas where discharge rates have increased. Common sense suggests that there must be a correlation.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I have many reservations about the forthcoming Bill, but the aspect that should cause the greatest concern is that nowhere does it mention informed consent. Under the Bill, patients will be discharged apparently without ever having had the opportunity to agree whether they should be, or to exercise any choice at all. For those of us who work in the field, that is worrying—not just for those older people but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, for their carers, many of whom are extremely elderly and unable to care for people with complex health needs.
Furthermore, the Bill makes no mention of mental incapacity. There appears to be no mechanism to establish what is in the best interests of the most frail older people—those who cannot express their own will. That seems totally to contradict standard 2 of the National Service Framework for Older People, which requires that older people receive the care that meets their needs as individuals.

351
Many noble Lords have mentioned bed-blocking and the lack of care homes as a causal factor. It is indeed. However, as we consider the Bill—I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that I expect that it will be here sooner rather than later—we shall hear an acronym that we all know and love: "sit reps", situation reports on hospital discharge. They are the common currency of social services and acute hospitals, the locally collected statistics that give the reasons behind delay of discharge.
No noble Lords have mentioned, and nor have the Government made much of the fact, that a substantial proportion of delayed discharges—up to 25 per cent, and in some areas a great deal higher—are caused by delays and inefficiencies within the NHS: failure to communicate within departments; failure to have discharge procedures in place; or failure to agree a process between acute and other wards. The Bill is not aimed at the right targets or in the right way.
Finally, I turn to accountability. One reads reports that the legislation came from Sweden; but it has been plucked from a different health and social care context. In Sweden, both health and social care are largely monopolies; in this country, social care most certainly is not. It is difficult to envisage at either a strategic level or for individuals where accountability for what may happen to people will lie and where complaints and advocacy are properly to be sited.
In view of all that, I have been desperately searching for an analogy. I have come to think that this is a community care congestion charge. Rather like Mr Livingstone's proposal, of which the Minister will no doubt be well aware, this provision is premature. Rather than being based on a whole system of care, it is an attempt to address one particular bottleneck. That may deal with the symptom but not with the cause.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, in an excellent speech, highlighted one area of concern: the ability of primary care trusts to deliver the current system. In view of what he and other noble Lords had to say, there is a strong case, not necessarily for delaying the Bill for a long time, but for saying that the Government's hopes of having the system up and running by April 2003 are somewhat premature.
I fear that the wheels are beginning to come off the Government's perpetual revolution in the NHS. NHS forecasts are beginning to have all the credibility of Soviet five-year plans for the wheat harvest. Taking these two single measures, I believe that the future for older people in this year is beginning to look very much starker than it was previously. These measures, in particular, will receive thorough and tough scrutiny as they move through this House.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, to some extent I shall concentrate on work and pensions issues and, therefore, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of an occupational pension scheme and an interest in Equitable Life.
352
However, before I turn to those issues, I want to pick out one part of the gracious Speech which I do not believe has attracted enormous interest. It states:
"Parliament will be invited to scrutinise legislation in draft on a number of measures, reflecting the importance that my Government places on pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament".
I am most enthusiastic about pre-legislative scrutiny. In fact, it is 30 years since I was the first Minister to introduce in full a draft Bill which abolished purchase tax and SET and introduced value added tax. As a result of that pre-legislative scrutiny, I believe that the legislation has lasted the test of time, except for the fact that successive Chancellors have increased the rate from 10 per cent, which was nice and simple, to 17 per cent.
I am profoundly worried about the way that we now scrutinise legislation. From our experience in the previous Session on the Tax Credits Bill, which arrived in this House in an unworkable state due to the fact that the Minister in another place clearly did not give it sufficient scrutiny, and from the way that the Home Secretary's proposals on asylum were not discussed at all in the other place, other than when we happened to defeat the Government on a particular amendment, we know that the system is not working. The process of programming and modernisation in another place is placing a bigger and bigger burden on your Lordships' House. One cannot help but feel that somehow the proposal for more pre-legislative scrutiny is intended to make up for the fact that this House does not carry out legislative scrutiny in the way that it should.
In the course of the debate, many noble Lords have spoken on both health and pensions issues. With regard to the health issues, I have a strong impression that noble Lords are mostly warning of dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, warned about the danger of smoking. I strongly agree with that. My noble friend Lord Fowler dealt with the problems of the AIDS epidemic, and my noble friend Lord McColl spoke about falling morale in the health service. Going more widely, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour warned about the problems of dysfunctional families and the breakdown of family structures. Therefore, we heard a whole series of warnings on which, no doubt, the Minister will wish to comment when responding to issues raised in the health service field.
However, I want to turn primarily to the issue of pensions. We are promised a Green Paper in the near future. Whether this is a question of the calm before the storm from a legislative point of view, given the welter of legislation with which the noble Baroness and I have dealt over the past five years, or whether it is simply the calm before a damp squib, we shall have to wait to see. But, at all events, I believe that it is worth referring to the previous Green Paper, Partnership in Pensions, published in December 1998. A crucial part of that paper set out the Government's expectation that total spending on pensions would change from 60 per cent from the state and 40 per cent from private sources to the reverse—that is, 40 per cent from the state and 60 per cent from private sources.

353
From statements made by the noble Baroness the Minister on the Front Bench and outside, it would seem that she has been saying that the department is thinking about the matter again. She did not mention the issue in her opening remarks. But it is crucial because almost everything that the Government have done since the publication of that Green Paper has pushed the balance in the opposite direction. Crucially, it undermines provision in the private sector and, very largely, has failed so far as concerns provision in the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, and my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Blackwell all referred to the stealth tax on ACT. The total take now with regard to pension funds is around £25 billion and rising. That has meant that more and more companies have felt obliged to change final salary schemes to defined contribution schemes, transferring the risk from the company to the individual. A recent survey indicated that around half—rather more, in fact—the final salary schemes that existed at the time of the previous Green Paper have been closed to new entrants or future accruals. That is a fundamental change of the greatest importance.
As regards the stakeholder pension, the survey to which I have just referred suggests that fewer than 1 per cent of employees based in firms covered by the survey have joined stakeholder schemes and that 46 per cent of stakeholder schemes have no members at all. Again, the legislation on stakeholder pensions that we ploughed through has largely been a failure. Increasingly, outside experts are calling into doubt the state second pension and moving towards the views of the late Barbara Castle, whose contribution to our debates we miss very much. She was always in favour of raising the basic state pension and not going down the means tested route. The National Association of Pension Funds, the IPPR and the Pensions Policy Institute have all produced proposals that concentrate on the basic state pension rather than move towards the state second pension. Commentators such as Mr Timmins in the Financial Times have expressed similar doubts. The Minister has been cagey about the 40:60 split. However, it would be helpful to know whether that is still the Government's expectation or whether, as a result of their own actions, matters have moved in precisely the opposite direction.
I turn now to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson in particular, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and others. The reality is that pensions are in a state of crisis. That is what we are faced with at the present time both with regard to those who become pensioners now or those who will become pensioners in 20 or 30 years' time. My noble friend Lord Blackwell pointed out the enormous future liabilities that ought to appear on the Government's balance sheet but which they refuse to make explicit in their accounts.
This is not just a crisis in the pensions industry but a crisis in confidence. It is that which is deterring people from saving at a time when, quite clearly, it is vitally important that they should if they are ever to retire on a reasonable income. That brings me to a point made
354
by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I agreed with virtually every word of his speech. He referred to Equitable Life. Only last weekend we heard that, as a result of the serious situation at Equitable Life, some people with pensions already in payment—perhaps having retired 20 years ago—will suddenly find that their pensions are cut by about 20 or 30 per cent. I cannot recall that ever happening previously, even when the Policyholders Protection Act 1997 was introduced. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
As regards this matter there has quite clearly been a complete failure on the part of the regulator and the Government. Originally, the matter was the responsibility of the DTI. Then a number of officials moved to the Treasury and the matter was for a considerable time the responsibility of the Treasury. It then became the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority acting as the agent of the Treasury and then, finally, the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority itself. However, the reality is that the failure of Equitable Life is equally a failure of the regulator, and the regulator was the Treasury. There should have been a proper inquiry. The Government set up the Penrose inquiry. No, I am wrong; the Treasury set up the Penrose inquiry and the Treasury determined what its terms of reference should be. The report will be made to the Treasury. We now find that the inquiry has been set up in a such a way that it is not likely to be possible to publish the report in full anyway. It is absurd to have the failures of the Treasury investigated in that way. However independent Lord Penrose may be, he is closely confined by the very organisation that he should be investigating.
As a result, the ombudsman felt that his inquiries should be put on hold. I have a qualification to make in this context. I had an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the House on 31st October, when I made exactly the point that I have just raised. When he replied that the matter had not been put on hold, I asked him to check his Facts. Very courteously and in his usual way, he has done so and he wrote to me. He is right that the inquiry now being carried out by the ombudsman has not been put on hold. However, that is only a tiny period of the overall period that has affected Equitable Life. The overall range of complaints that the ombudsman has been investigating has been put on hold; he is not going to produce an inquiry until such time as the Penrose report has been published, if it is ever published.
The ombudsman's views on this subject are very clear. He said—he has of course just retired and been replaced by a lady—in his annual report that:
"The root cause of the problem, in my view, is the failure of the authorities to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair".
That is what should have been done, but it was not done; it should be done now. Lord Penrose must be given unlimited terms of reference to go into all aspects of the affair and he must produce a report that is genuinely independent and not circumscribed in the

355
way that the Treasury, in its own interests, has managed to do so far. That meant that some people found that their pensions, which had been in payment for 20 years, had suddenly reduced. Many people are suffering serious loss and we do not know even now what the future of the company will be. Consequently, there has been widespread concern and a widespread crisis of confidence in financial institutions generally and in relation to the regulators. I believe that that was pointed out on "Panorama", although I did not see it the other night.
These are very important issues because we must do all that we can to ensure that the pensions industry functions on a viable basis. We must do all that we can to ensure that so far as possible company schemes remain of the "final salary" sort rather than of the "defined contributions" sort. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson clearly spelt out, the pressures on companies are growing. Not all the reasons for that are the fault of the Government; as my noble friend rightly pointed out, there is greater longevity and a number of other factors, including the decline in the stock market, make the situation very difficult. However, that, to a significant extent, is the problem.
Incidentally, I welcome the situation regarding FRS17. I pay tribute to the Minister, who I believe was probably incidental in persuading the Secretary of State—she has done so in relation to many issues—that the FSR17 issue will be delayed until such time as the international standard is agreed. However, to what extent that standard reflects some of the problems associated with FRS17 remains to be seen. That measure has been one of the factors contributing to the breakdown of the traditional pension system in this country, which the Government, when they came into office, asserted was the jewel in the crown of the British pension system.
In her opening remarks the Minister was not as analytical as she normally is. Her speech was little else than a long stream of statistics. She did not anticipate, understandably, the Green Paper, but she did not deal with the fundamental issues of the split between private and public and so on, to which I referred in my opening remarks. That stream of statistics must itself be suspect because the department and the Government generally have recently made a number of rather serious mistakes. The Financial Times reported the other day that the Ministry has agreed to clarify the figures.
We all know that both parties in government have not had an impeccable record in the SERPS saga. Having said that, one would have thought that at least the department would be trying to get its figures right, whereas it appears that its projections did not adequately allow for the problems of contracting out and so on.
It is also the case that, as my honourable friend Mr Willetts in another place has pointed out, the Government made a most appalling error in estimating the amount of money that was being invested each year in pension schemes. They were under the impression that the sum was £86.4 billion. It
356
turned out that those figures were totally wrong. It was £43.7 billion. I leave noble Lords to deduct one figure from the other to see the magnitude of the error. That was reflected by a most extraordinarily complacent attitude by the Government on this whole issue. They were basing their ideas on statistics which were wrong. That is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness has been inclined to say that there is not a crisis as regards pension provision. I believe that that is the situation.
There are other problems regarding complexity that we have been over many times. Prudential recently produced a study stating that £1.2 billion in benefits are unclaimed. If one looks at the documentation which explains to people how to fill in the relevant forms, one can well understand why that is so. The Government said, "Oh, well the form is now much shorter". Yes, the form got shorter and the explanatory memorandum on how to fill it in got longer. This did not really work out as the Government proposed. Curiously enough, it has almost exactly the same number of pages overall.
The other aspect of the matter about which we have expressed grave concern—and on which the Government are continuing to plough in the wrong direction—is means testing. We are told that in 1997, when the Government came into office, 14 million people were in households where there were means-tested benefits. By next year the number is expected to be 25 million. In 1997, 38 per cent of pensioners were on means-tested benefits. By 2003 the figure is expected to be 57 per cent.
I am not generally speaking in favour of debate by statistics, even though the Minister decided that that was an appropriate way to approach this debate. But I am profoundly concerned about—my noble friend Lord Blackwell raised this point—what will happen in the future with minimum income guarantee being uprated in earnings, and with more and more people on means-tested benefits. The prospect for vast masses of people in our country in 20 or 30 years' time is grim indeed. We will see more and more people on means-tested benefits and a smaller and smaller number of people paying for them. At some stage—I probably will not be here in 30 years' time to see it—the people who are responsible for paying for means-tested benefits will not be able to finance them.
The prospect for pensions is desperately uncertain. I shall make one final point about Equitable Life. We must set up a proper inquiry, so that we can restore confidence in the savings industry, in the regulator and the prospects for the future. At the moment, the Government are going in the wrong direction. There ought to have been a system, from 1997 until now, to move the pensions industry in the direction in which it wished to move, which was towards a greater emphasis on private provision and a smaller emphasis on public.
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, we are often called upon to display considerable feats of

357
ingenuity in pulling together the threads of what is always a wide-ranging debate. The point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Colwyn, about the licensing of musicians takes the debate even wider.
I enjoyed the reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about the glory days of the old DHSS, although I thought that his reference to a comment that I made rather a long time ago was a bit below the belt. Later, I shall demonstrate—to my satisfaction, at least—that there is a coherent line between what I said then and what I say tonight. None the less, I agree with the implication of what he said: however we cut the cake in Whitehall, we must always work across departmental boundaries. There are strong links between ill health and the other problems that we face, such as unemployment, poor housing, poor educational achievement or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, mentioned, the insecurity faced by so many young people. We will always have to work together throughout Whitehall to sort out such problems.
The issue for health, in the wider sense, is the irony that, although today we are healthier and more prosperous and live longer, the health gap between the most disadvantaged in our society and the rest is very wide. At birth, men in Manchester can expect to live nearly 10 years less than their counterparts in north Dorset; women in Manchester can expect to live nearly seven years less than women in west Somerset. That is why we must have a radical programme to tackle health inequalities. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that that is why we have made the reduction of such inequalities a key criterion for the allocation of NHS resources to different parts of the country. It is why we must do everything that we can to encourage healthier lifestyles, improve diet and physical activity and tackle drug and alcohol misuse.
I believe that we can see encouraging progress. There has been a reduction in teenage pregnancies among the under-16s and under-18s. On sexual health more generally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that we cannot be complacent. I share his view that a focus on public health promotion is essential, and that is what we seek to have. I pay tribute to the noble Lord's leadership, in his time as Secretary of State, over the issue of AIDS.
It is not just a matter of sexual health. We must ensure that there is a healthy start to life, through action to reduce infant mortality. The Sure Start programme, targeted at disadvantaged children and their families, has much to offer. We must do more to help people to improve their diet. I am glad to report that, from this autumn, nearly 600,000 children will receive a free piece of fruit every day in school. Physical activity is equally important, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for the work of the New Opportunities Fund in sponsoring healthy living centres and for the new programme to encourage physical exercise. I do not believe that one can overestimate the importance of that. We shall do everything that we can to encourage the NHS to support schools in that important programme.
358
Smoking is equally important. The smoking cessation services that we have launched are showing great signs of success. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for his generosity in relation to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his initiative in bringing it forward, and no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his kind remarks on that matter.
As far as the implementation of the Act is concerned, we have announced that the commencement date for most of the Act's provisions will be February 2003. We have power to make regulations allowing sponsorship agreements to continue in certain circumstances until 2006. We intend to make those regulations in the near future and are currently consulting on them.
As regards the approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace, the Government are giving careful consideration to the commission's proposals. As part of that process the Health and Safety Commission has been asked to consider further both the implications of the code of practice on the hospitality sector and the role the public places charter can play.
I agree with my noble friends concerning the common agricultural policy and we would certainly, as a country, like to see tobacco subsidies phased out. We are working closely with the European Commission. I assure my noble friend that we take up that issue as every opportunity arises.
Sticking with the public health arena, I would like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that I welcome him back to our debates on fluoridation. I want to confirm the assurance that he has been given by the Chief Medical Officer that we shall not use the Medical Research Council report to discredit the York report. I am happy to write to him on the further matters that he raised in our debate today. I consider dentistry an important component of public health. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will know that we are working very hard with the BDA and the profession to find a way to get ourselves through the treadmill impact and have the right incentives to encourage dentists to work under the NHS dental contract. The noble Lord will know that I have a great deal of respect for the dentistry profession and I am as committed as the Government are to finding a way through.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, emphasised the key role of primary care trusts in relation to public health and the important role that they have to play. I agree with that. That is why we were determined to place public health at the primary care trust level. I believe that the noble Lord has shown the potential of primary care trusts to take those public health programmes forward. Certainly, I believe that they have an important contribution to make to our overriding commitment to break the cycle in which previous generations have condemned children to a lifetime of ill health, merely because of where they lived or what their parents did for a living.

359
That is why it has been so important to reduce unemployment, and to make good progress towards our target of reducing the number of children in low income households by a quarter by 2004, as the first step on the road to eradicating child poverty within a generation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the funding of old age is just as important in that context.
That brings me to the question of pensions. My noble friend Lady Hollis dealt with a number of the issues that have been raised. It is clear that the Green Paper will be of great importance. I hope that when it is published it will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As a former member of an Equitable Life AVC scheme I have a particular interest in a number of the matters raised by noble Lords tonight.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will forgive me for not being drawn on the questions he raised in relation to the Penrose inquiry. I believe that we need to wait for that inquiry to report and the timetable is very much a matter for Lord Penrose.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Lord has not taken the point. The way in which the inquiry has been set up is totally inappropriate. Lord Penrose is looking into the Treasury and the Treasury has set up the inquiry in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for him to say anything sensible about the broader issues, as the ombudsman made clear. It is quite wrong—it is totally wrong—for the Government to have set it up in that way. It has delayed others, such as the Treasury Select Committee in another place and the ombudsman, going into the issue. The whole thing is, in short, a cover-up.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot accept the suggestion the noble Lord has made. It seems to me that the inquiry terms of reference are broad. They are to inquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of Equitable Life, taking account of the relevant life market background, identifying any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business, and to give a report thereon to the Treasury. It is independent and it is up to Lord Penrose to decide how he conducts the inquiry within those terms of reference.
More generally on the question of pensions, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott, Lord Fowler, Lord Blackwell and Lord Hodgson, that of course the Government are not complacent about the current situation in relation to pensions. I am not complacent, nor is my noble friend. We have put in place a structure of state support, increasing retirement pension as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, acknowledged; increasing the minimum guarantee; reforming SERPS to become the most generous state second pension; and introducing stakeholder-funded pensions for those without private funded schemes of their own. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that pension credits make even small pensions worth having.
360
However, I understand the issues facing the pension funds. It is the case that long-term gains in life expectancy, the current situation with the stock market and the move from final salary to money-purchase schemes has produced concerns over people's pension expectation. There is no doubt whatever that people need to build up greater pension savings to provide for an increasing length of retirement. I do not believe that there can be any disagreement about that.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that what also matters is employers' contributions to those schemes. The move to money-purchase schemes has seen those contributions reduced. I agree that employers' contributions are pivotal and I refer the noble Lord to the fact that Legal and General have estimated that where employers contribute to stakeholder schemes so do around 80 per cent of their employees. Where they do not, only around 10 per cent of their employees make such provision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that I do not accept that stakeholder pensions have been a failure—more than 1 million have been sold—but I believe that we need to encourage employers to contribute.
The issue of compulsion, which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised, is a major step to contemplate. The response to the Green Paper will no doubt argue the merits and demerits of compulsion. The Green Paper will look at pensions policy in the round, including opportunities open to people around retirement, and it will set out proposals to enable people to build up more pension savings. It will also take into account work underway at the Inland Revenue to simplify pension scheme taxation. Furthermore, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that it will pick up many of the issues she raised in her speech.
Of course it is necessary to strike the right balance between competing goals and we have to devise policies for the long term. We recognise the important issues raised by noble Lords today and there will be further opportunity to contribute to the debate on pension provision in the consultation period after the Green Paper has been published.
I have so far focused on health equality, the links between health and poverty and the specific responsibilities of the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly in relation to pensions. Continuing the theme, the NHS has a key role to play in improving health and healthcare for all. That is why the NHS Plan is so critical; that is why we are setting national standards; that is why we are building up capacity in hospital beds and in community and primary care provision; and that is why we are increasing the number of staff employed within the National Health Service.
I did not recognise the extremely gloomy picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of where the NHS stands at the moment, nor did I recognise her rather rose-tinted analysis of where the NHS stood in 1997. Indeed, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that many of the critical challenges we face now

361
are as a result of chronic under-investment by the previous government. I give but one example of that—the number of nurse training places. In 1993 the number was reduced to 13,000; we have now got the number up to more than 20,000. We have had to invest considerable resources in the infrastructure because of the previous government's neglect.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy said that the jury is still out on PFI. I should say three things to my noble friend, the first of which is that the traditional approach to building hospitals in the NHS has clearly not worked. He will know, and many noble Lords will have experienced, the dreary process and the years it has taken to build NHS hospitals under the traditional route—the phase 1, the phase 2, the phase 3, the phase 4—so that by the time a hospital has finally been built it has become obsolescent.
PFI is an opportunity to fast-build hospitals in the future, and evidence is coming through of its success. For instance, all the major hospital schemes completed so far under PFI have been delivered on or ahead of time. That compares enormously favourably with the record of the NHS under the previous funding capital regime.
My noble friend referred to comments made by the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General, but the evidence that PFI is better value for money has been provided by the National Audit Office. Many reports on PFI schemes now completed across all areas of government activity show value for money benefits of varying degrees, as indeed they have to.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how that is the case? The Minister is saying that the deputy comptroller totally disagrees with his own reports.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that matter should be addressed to the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General rather than to me. The reports that the NAO have produced show value for money, albeit of varying degrees.
Turning to the question of foundation trusts and the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, it is true that for a long time I considered that the best way of getting the Department of Health out of micromanagement—and it was as keen on micromanagement under the noble Lord's stewardship as it has been ever since—was down the public corporation route. I did believe that. But time has moved on and I am not sure now that a public corporation role is the right way forward. I suspect that the danger is that a public corporation might be just as keen on micro-management and interference, judging by the record of public corporations that we have all known and loved, as the Department of Health.
The big difference, and the reason why we can have confidence that through foundation trusts we can seriously devolve to the field, is that we have established in the past few years national standards and an independent inspectorate. That gives us the
362
confidence to be able to say that through foundation trusts we can indeed devolve much more than has ever been devolved previously.
I know that noble Lords are worried that we are taking in the first instance a limited number of trusts and that they will have a greater advantage over the rest of the health system. But in a sense—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is always asking for pilots—it is surely better that we should use trusts which, being three-star, have proved themselves successful.
The great expectation is that, as further trusts achieve three-star status, they too will become foundation trusts. In time, I hope that there will be many foundation trusts completely under local ownership which will be accountable to the local population and to their members. The hope is that they will be able to innovate and breathe, and be able to deal with the issues referred to by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in terms of good relationships between doctors and nurses and other members of staff.
I have no doubt that there is great potential in establishing foundation trusts—in changing the relationship between the Department of Health and the NHS at local level. But it is through our establishment of national standards and through the independent inspectorate, which has received a warm welcome in this debate, that we are able to have confidence in those arrangements.
So far as concerns the new inspectorate, of course we want it so be independent. I should have thought that the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy as chairman of the shadow commission is a visible sign of our desire to see it robustly independent.
If we are to have a first-class health service, we clearly need to have more effective integration of health and social care. That brings me to the delayed discharge Bill. Delayed discharge from hospital is a serious problem. It can have knock-on effects throughout the whole of the health and social care system. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that I believe it will be sooner rather than the many months that perhaps she was hoping for. I hope that we shall come to it very shortly.
I do not believe that the interests of older people are served by the current blurring of responsibilities. The point of the Bill will be to make clear where responsibilities lie and to provide the financial incentives which local authorities have not previously had in order to make discharge arrangements effective.
Of course, we do not want perverse incentives. In fact, the incentives will be there to encourage health and local government to work together. If the NHS does not perform effectively, it will be penalised through the funding system. There are issues around how this is to be organised. But I say to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and to the noble 13aronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Greengross, that we want this to work with the grain of good partnerships between health and local government. We want to work with

363
the grain of care trusts in terms of pooled arrangements. But it is very important to ensure that we do not continue with the blurring of responsibility that leads to a failure to act effectively and to the real problem of older people being stuck in our NHS hospitals when they ought to be receiving care in the community.
On the mental health legislation, I make it clear that we shall press ahead with the reform of mental health laws. This is presently subject to a consultation process. When we finish considering those consultations, we will bring forward a Bill during this Session.
In conclusion, the debate has been extremely successful. The issues that we discussed hang together. It has been a very welcome, high-quality debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I share his
364
enthusiasm for pre-legislative scrutiny. I do not feel that I can respond to his criticism of some of the Bills. All I say to him is that he has had a flavour of the kind of debate that we often have on health Bills, and I look forward to enormously helpful scrutiny of the Bills that I will bring forward later in this Session. Undoubtedly, they will be carefully scrutinised, and rightly so, but I will also commend them to the House. They deserve our wholehearted support.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move that the debate on the Address be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Long-term Empty Housing
  Long-term Empty Housing