Sitting of 28 November 2002

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

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE
Standing Order 4a, line 4, after 'London' insert—
'and, if it affects Wales, at an office in Cardiff'.
Standing Order 4a, line 15, leave out 'or community' and insert—
', or (in Wales) in the county or county borough in which the community,'.
Standing Order 4a, line 37, after 'district' insert—
', or (in Wales) in the county or county borough'.
Standing Order 24, line 1, after 'notice' insert 'under the preceding orders'.
Standing Order 26, line 4, at end insert—
'(see also Standing Order 209 (Time for delivering notices, etc.))'.
Standing Order 27, line 72, leave out 'Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.'.
Standing Order 27a, line 33, leave out 'Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister'.
Standing Order 29, line 8, leave out', Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 34, line 11, leave out', Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 37, line 11, leave out 'Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister'.
Standing Order 37, line 19, leave out 'Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions,' and insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.'.
Standing Order 39, line 5, leave out', the Home Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.' and insert 'and the Home Office'.
Standing Order 39, line 7, after 'Industry' insert,' the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister'.
Standing Order 39, line 17, leave out 'General Register Office' and insert
'Office for National Statistics'.
Standing Order 45, line 21, leave out,' Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 47, line 10, leave out 'Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and insert 'Office of the Deputy Prime Minister'.
Standing Order 80 is hereby repealed.
440
Standing Order 81, line 1, leave out from 'Means' to the end and insert—
'or the Counsel to the Speaker shall, on or before 8th January each year, hold a conference with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords or with his Counsel for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective private bills should first be considered.'
Standing Order 144, line 1, leave out from 'or' to the end and insert—
'its objects, which are—

(a) made by a minister of the Crown, and

(b) presented to the House by being deposited in the Private Bill Office, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill.

(2) Where a recommendation is made in any such report, the committee—

(a) may, if it thinks fit, hear a person nominated by the minister in explanation of the recommendation, and

(b) shall note the recommendation in its report and, if it does not agree to such recommendation shall state its reasons for dissenting.'.

Standing Order 147, line 8, leave out ', Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 147, line 11, leave out ', Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 154, line 13, leave out ', Local Government and the Regions'.
Standing Order 154, line 28, leave out ', Local Government and the Regions'.—[Chairman of Ways and Means.]

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

    Child Care
    Linda Perham: What plans he has to increase pre-school and after-school child care provision. [81967]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): On 15 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, as part of the spending review, plans to more than double child care spending and create 250,000 new child care places by 2006. In addition, we shall also be encouraging schools to provide and host a range of services, including child care, for the local community through our extended schools programme.
    Linda Perham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he recognise the work of the Redbridge early-years and child care partnership on delivering excellent pre-school and after-school services with resources provided by the Government through sure start and other excellent initiatives? Will he also congratulate it on the recent award of a new opportunities fund boost of £200,000?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and I am pleased to congratulate Redbridge on that. I know that she has a long-standing interest in

    441
    providing the best possible early-years services in Redbridge. Indeed, she was a founding member of the Redbridge under-fives. The experience in her area demonstrates the importance of investment in such services.
    Mr. David Cameron: I hope that the Minister has had time to read my Adjournment debate of last night on pre-schools. Sadly, no Education Minister was present to hear it. Will he take up my plea to cut the regulatory burden on pre-schools? They have Ofsted reports every year whereas primary schools have them only every five years. Their child profiles are 16 pages long and they have to have 24 policies, even though some of the pre-schools, like the wonderful Blackditch Bunnies in Stanton Harcourt which I visited recently, have fewer than 20 children.
    Mr. Twigg: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having had the opportunity to read what I am sure was an excellent debate. It is this Government who have invested in early years, including pre-schools, via our funding of the nursery programme. I am happy to look at the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I recall that before 1997 pre-schools were closing up and down the country. Thanks to our investment in early years, new pre-schools are opening up and down the country.
    Judy Mallaber: Many of our children in Amber Valley benefit hugely from breakfast clubs and out-of-school provision. Will my hon. Friend ensure that funding for the current schemes continues when the new opportunities fund ends? Many clubs cannot be sustained by simply asking parents to pay, because they are in poorer areas.
    Mr. Twigg: I know that those breakfast clubs and other out-of-school activities have made a real difference. We want to ensure that they are sustainable because the benefits that they bring are educational, social and economic. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), I said that our extended schools programme has great potential. I think new investment will be available not only for breakfast clubs, but for after-school facilities as well.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Is it not a frightful waste of money that pre-school settings and other educational establishments are employing people they cannot use because of delays in the Criminal Records Bureau system? Is the Minister aware of the length of those delays? What action is he taking with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to put things right?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The issue is serious and I agree with him. We are working with the Home Office and Ofsted to clear the backlog of delays. They are unacceptable and we want the problem resolved as quickly as possible.

    Specialist Schools
    Ms Meg Munn: What plans he has to allow more schools to obtain specialist status. [81968]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am pleased to announce today that the Government intend to remove the cap on national funding to support specialist schools. This means that every school in England which meets the required standard will from today be able to join the specialist schools programme.
    In addition, I can say that my Department is announcing a new partnership fund of £3 million in 2003–04 to be administered with the technology colleges trust in accordance with guidelines from my Department. This is designed specifically to help schools that have difficulty in meeting the current £50,000 sponsorship requirement.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome answer and his announcement. What support will be given to schools that apply for specialist status and do not meet the requirements, not because of financial reasons, but because their plan is deemed to be not good enough? It is demoralising for schools that are in difficult circumstances which want to take advantage of that opportunity to fall at the first hurdle.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Support is offered through the technology colleges trust and local education authorities. I congratulate the director of education in my hon. Friend's city of Sheffield for the work that is being done to enable all the authority's schools that want to become specialist to achieve that by 2006, provided that they meet the quality standard. At the moment, 10 out of 27 schools in Sheffield are specialist, but I hope that my announcement today will help all schools to become specialist with support from the technology colleges trust and the local education authority.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Does the Secretary of State accept Ofsted's view that specialist schools should not be assessed as a homogenous group because specialist sports colleges, for example, have seen no real improvement in standards, whereas the best performing are those that specialise in languages; and that diversity does not, in itself, drive up standards? Have not we reached the point at which we must stop obsessing about structure and start looking at the philosophy behind the way in which teachers teach and the way in which they are trained?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point, in that it is right to look at particular schools in a particular way rather than to generalise across disciplines. His comments about Ofsted are not entirely accurate. Research by Ofsted confirmed that for the vast majority of schools already in the programme, specialist status has helped to sustain or accelerate the pace of school improvement. "School improvement" is the key phrase, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the scheme is to develop school improvement programmes across the whole range.
    In evidence to the Select Committee yesterday, Ofsted's director of inspection said that it would be years before the picture became clear, and I accept that

    443
    judgment. With a proper research programme, it will be some time before we see how things are going. However, I believe that our approach to school improvement, using specialist schools, is already delivering results and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend look closely not only at Ofsted's evidence to our Committee yesterday but at the evidence from a range of academics who are concerned about the relationship between the investment in specialist schools, which is a great deal of taxpayers' money, and results? We know that good schools become specialist schools, but as yet specialist schools are not producing good schools. However, it would be churlish not to welcome the announcement that many more schools will be able to benefit from specialist status.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome, and I shall look very closely at his Committee's conclusions. I have considered the evidence given to the Committee in hearings earlier this week, and a number of interesting points were made. However, anyone who doubts the contribution of the specialist programme to the process of driving up standards in schools, by providing focus and an opportunity to develop different aptitudes, is missing an important point. That is why I was so pleased to be able to announce today that the opportunity to take part in that dynamic and positive programme will be extended to all schools in the country.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State clearly believes in specialist schools. He will be aware that in Northern Ireland, where schools are able to specialise by academic selection, GCSE results are 14 per cent. better than in England, A-level results are 13 per cent. better, and 20 per cent. fewer children leave school with no qualifications. What lessons does he draw from that for the specialist schools programme in England?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not draw the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman obviously does, which is that the 11-plus should be reintroduced throughout England. It would extraordinary if the Conservative party nailed its flag to 11-plus selection. The lesson that I learn is that the more focus schools have and the more their ethos encourages learning, the better they do. That is why I think that the specialist programme is positive and why I am so pleased to announce its extension today—it is the right way to go.

    Classroom Assistants
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: How many classroom assistants are employed in (a) the west midlands and (b) England. [81969]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The full-time equivalent number of support staff in maintained schools in the west midlands in January 2002 was 23,082. That includes more than 11,000 teaching assistants, more than 5,000 administrative staff, 1,775 technicians and nearly 5,000 other staff.
    Mr. Cunningham: What proposals does my hon. Friend have for career development for classroom assistants? Is he happy with their salary levels, which I believe are minimum wage?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are 80,000 more classroom assistants than there were five or six years ago. I had the pleasure of seeing, in Liverpool, a pioneering scheme to create a career path to allow teaching assistants to become classroom teachers. Classroom assistants' pay is a matter for local authorities and is determined locally. I know from my area that pay varies throughout the country, but I have not heard that assistants are on the minimum wage.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued heavy investment in education which the Chancellor confirmed in his pre-Budget report yesterday is leading to good results in the numbers of classroom assistants and teachers? Is he aware that in my constituency, for example, Limbrick Wood primary school, which only three years ago was in special measures, has now made a remarkable turnaround and is achieving results above national average at key stage 2? Will he find an early opportunity to visit the school, where he will be most welcome, as in Coventry generally?
    Mr. Miliband: That is a very tempting offer. I was in Coventry two weeks ago, and am sorry to have missed that opportunity. I am happy to congratulate Limbrick Wood primary school on its outstanding achievement. My hon. Friend will know that in 1997, about 560 schools were in special measures, but that number has now about halved. I look forward to taking in Limbrick Wood primary school on a future visit to the region.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: As an ex-head teacher, I greatly valued the classroom assistants who worked for me for a number of years. What does the Minister mean by high-level teaching assistants? If he means classroom assistants teaching formally, does he not agree that that destroys the ideal of a full graduate profession, for which we fought for many years when I was a very young man just starting teaching?
    Mr. Miliband: I am sure that the young man on the Back Benches agrees that high-level teaching assistants such as language specialists, laboratory technicians and music specialists who come into classes can make a genuine contribution to the learning of young people. It is important to point out that all classroom assistants work under the direction of qualified teachers. Teaching remains a graduate profession, but those graduates will be in charge of a wider range of support staff,

    445
    from secretaries right up to high-level teaching assistants. That reinforces teacher professionalism, and is certainly not a threat to it.

    Further and Higher Education
    Paul Goggins: What steps he is taking to widen participation in further and higher education. [81970]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Extending opportunity in both further and higher education is central to our aims. We announced the most ambitious programme ever for further education last week—a £1.2 billion expansion. Our excellence challenge programme for higher education is already encouraging wider participation and the strategy that we will publish in January will take that forward.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but does she agree that a principal barrier to wider participation, particularly in further education, is the fact that far too many parents at home and people at work simply cannot read, write and add up adequately? What targets have the Government set to improve adult literacy and numeracy?
    Margaret Hodge: I fully agree that it is an indictment of us all that 7 million adults do not have the basic literacy and numeracy skills needed to prosper in society and employment. We have set an ambitious target of 1.5 million achieving those basic skills by 2007, and I am proud that in the past 12 months, 250,000 have gained the required qualifications.
    Mr. Mark Field: The Minister will recognise that, historically, further education has been a Cinderella subject, particularly in the present debate about higher education. In the City of Westminster in my constituency, we have a thriving further education college which I recently visited. One of the main problems there is funding for English as a supplementary language. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how we can ensure that from all the debate about funding further and higher education there emerges a ring-fenced fund to that end?
    Margaret Hodge: We are extremely proud of the fact that we have been able to put a 19 per cent. real-terms increase into funding for further education colleges over the next three years. That will bring them back to the centre by providing them with the resources to deliver wider participation and higher standards. The issue of funding English as a foreign language is critical to building community cohesion among the many people who are joining us in this country. Our difficulty is finding enough teachers, but we are working on that.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I wholly welcome my hon. Friend's statement about extra money going into further education. Does she agree that widening participation in further and higher education is crucial to areas like mine, which is in economic regeneration, particularly for people who have lost out at the age of 18 and discovered their motivation in their
    446
    twenties and thirties? Will she therefore ensure that in their review of funding for higher education in particular, the Government will do nothing to damage widening participation?
    Margaret Hodge: I share my right hon. Friend's passion for widening participation in both further and higher education. My constituency is not unlike his—participation in post-16 education, both further education and higher education, is far lower than I would like. I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance that ensuring that young people, whatever their background, have access to further and higher education is central to our work.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Given the continuing fiasco of the Department's handling of individual learning accounts, it is not surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took it upon himself yesterday to announce yet another new target in that area, this time an increase to 90 per cent. post-16 participation in education and training. Given that it is almost as easy for any Minister to announce a new target as it is to miss an old one, will this particular Education and Skills Minister commit herself to resign if the new target is missed?
    Margaret Hodge: I will resign as and when I think that I have acted inappropriately. Sadly for the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that stage has yet been reached. The target announced by the Chancellor yesterday was a much better target because, for the first time, we have brought together into one target the vocational and the academic education of young people from the age of 16, to achieve a seamless progression. The purpose is to ensure that we deal with the very poor staying-on rates of young people at 16—one of the legacies that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister with responsibility in that area, which is one of the areas that we intend to put right.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Given that the new target focuses on young people in traditional academic disciplines as well as in modern apprenticeships and craft disciplines, how can we interest young people in the opportunities that exist in further education and training for craft skills and modern apprenticeships, which the economy needs and in which they need qualifications?
    Margaret Hodge: I hope that a number of the initiatives we are taking will support that objective, which I share with my hon. Friend. The educational maintenance allowances that we piloted have shown an encouraging increase in the number of young people choosing to participate, in the pilot areas. The reforms that we shall bring forward in the 14-to-19 curriculum will introduce new pathways into vocational education alongside more general education, which again will encourage more young people into that. The taskforce that we established yesterday, which will be led by people in the field—those who require the apprenticeships—will bring more understanding of the problems, so that we can reach the objective that my hon. Friend and I share.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What the funding per head is in secondary schools in (a) Leicestershire and (b) England and Wales. [81971]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In 2002–03 Leicestershire's funding per pupil in secondary schools is £3,390. The average for schools in England is £3,850.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that, like the Government's overdraft, which is getting worse, the amount of money available to children in Leicestershire under the current arrangements is getting worse? Whereas it used to be 10 per cent., current projections—I have checked the figures with the Library—make it look as though it will be 11 per cent. next year, which is the worst it has ever been in the county and certainly worse than it was under the Conservative Administration. Has not the time come to adopt option 5 in the proposals, which would stop the arrangement whereby additional educational needs are made the top priority, and would put more money and more emphasis on the basic allowance per pupil? That would be a much fairer system. What does the Minister propose to do about it?
    Mr. Miliband: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate the Government on increasing the standard spending assessment in Leicestershire by £18 million in the past year. I take seriously his concerns about the consultation that is currently under way and on which my right hon. Friend will make announcements in December. We take seriously all the representations that we have had from Leicestershire and elsewhere about the reforms to the system, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer to find out our conclusions. However, I can tell him that the basic entitlement will remain the largest element of the school funding formula. That is an important part of any system.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Along with all parents, I, as a governor of a Leicestershire school, welcome the increased expenditure that we have had since 1997, compared with the cuts in the preceding five years. Does my hon. Friend understand the frustration that parents will feel if the announcement that is made in the next couple of weeks does not substantially reduce the gap between the highest and the lowest funded education authorities in the country? Leicestershire is currently in the latter group. Even at this late stage, will my hon. Friend make a last-minute plea to ensure that the positive message that comes out is that we are addressing the enormous gap that exists, and that there is a bright future for Leicestershire schools, which will benefit from increased spending in the next few years?
    Mr. Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for schools in his constituency. I assure him that a floor will be included in the new formula to ensure that there are no losers in the system, contrary to some of the disinformation that has been
    448
    circulated. We are taking seriously the representations that have been made throughout the country and will make our proposals in due course.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister explain why, in determining the new formula for Leicestershire and other English and Welsh local education authorities, he has ignored the advice of the LEAs themselves, head teacher associations, governors and managers associations, Ofsted and the Audit Commission, in rejecting activity-led funding? After 18 months of deliberations by all those organisations, why has he simply said, "I'm not having any of it"? Will he explain that?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the work of the education funding strategy group, which has made an invaluable contribution to the development of the proposals that have been made. His particular allegation relates to something called activity-led funding—the suggestion that we should make assumptions in Whitehall about how head teachers should deploy their resources in every school throughout the country. I do not think that that would be appropriate. What we are proposing is a simpler and fairer system that puts power in the hands of the head teachers. It will ensure that there is a clear basis on which every pupil is funded. At the moment, the system is based on historic funding levels and a 1991 census. That is no way to go forward, and he will see that our proposals live up to that aspiration.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that blunt figures of the sort that he announced for Leicestershire understate the fact that delivery of the service is wildly more expensive in some areas than others? To give one example, an office in Hemel Hempstead costs three times as much as one in Glasgow. Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that figures on disposable income and the quality of service that can be delivered for the money are the most important ones on which he should be concentrating?
    Mr. Miliband: I am relieved to say that I am not responsible for the funding of education in Glasgow, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the new system will be based on three very clear principles: every pupil will have a basic entitlement; there will be a recognition of any additional educational needs for every pupil; and for different parts of the country, there will be a recognition of extra costs. That will be a simple system that everyone can understand and in which people can see how the money is being passed from us down to the schools.

    Top-up Fees
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on his policy on top-up fees for universities. [81972]
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on student top-up fees. [81975]
    Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on the review of higher education funding. [81977]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): We will publish in January a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education. After that, there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his response. Given the funding crisis in the university sector, does he accept that top-up fees could have a perverse effect, as students might avoid the institutions that are charging higher fees? I understand that applications to Imperial college have fallen dramatically. Does he accept that in Scotland, which is a tuition-fee-free zone, applications to higher education have increased to a 50 per cent. target, whereas in this country, our applications have stayed at the 1998 level? Will he look to a graduate or alumnus tax and to collective provision for the crisis in our education sector?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that question and I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a funding gap for higher education that is serious and that we must address. We must sort out the question of what the precise funding is, and it is important that individuals who pass through higher education make a contribution. The various arguments about a graduate tax, top-up fees, or whatever are very important. I share his concern that any system that we introduce should not have any intended or unintended consequences in terms of reducing access, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned in his earlier question.
    Those are precisely the issues that we are considering in detail. We are having a substantial discussion about such questions, which is a good thing. We also need to discuss the nature of the university system and how it should evolve as a whole between its research, teaching and economic regeneration functions. I hope that we will have those discussions.
    Mr. Grogan: When my right hon. Friend signs his name to the White Paper in January, will he make a tough political choice and reject the unelected siren voices of those who advocate student top-up fees, such as that chap Andrew Adonis, and instead bring new year joy and jubilation to the majority of Labour Members, the Secretary of State for International Development, probably most of the Cabinet and, most important, millions of youngsters and parents in hard-working families throughout the country with just enough hard-earned income to ensure that they have no chance of top-up fee abatement?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member is a good friend, and I appreciate the way in which he put his question. If the matter were as easy as he suggested, we would already be in the position that he suggests. I like to call Mr. Adonis "Mr. Xoffice" after Professor Ted Wragg's article, which said that I had to choose between the advice of
    450
    "Mr. Tony's Office", whoever he may be, and me. Mr. Adonis is slightly misrepresented in my hon. Friend's question.
    Neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor his staff are wedded to top-up fees. They want to solve the problem that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) identified—of raising money so that world-class, excellent universities such as York obtain the resources that they need. They have considered the various options and reached views on the potential merits of top-up fees, the graduate tax and so on. We are examining that now. The suggestion that a group of people is madly focused on top-up fees against all reason is false. We are assessing the options in the hope that we can present the country and the House with decent proposals in January.
    Tony Wright: Is not the fundamental fact that our university system is in crisis? Student numbers have doubled in a generation, while the unit of resource has halved. Many universities are bankrupt, staff salaries are stagnant and some of our most distinguished researchers are leaving the country. If we say what we oppose in funding, we must also say what we support. Do we not need a wider review of the university system that goes beyond the narrow parameters that the Government have announced?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend overstates the case a little, although I acknowledge that the 36 per cent. reduction in funding per full-time equivalent student from 1989 to 1997 has intensified all the pressures that he describes. As he implies, it means that we must confront the choices.
    For 35 years, there has been a sense of drift in the definition of a university. We need to identify much more clearly the great research universities, the outstanding teaching universities, and those that make a dynamic, dramatic contribution to their regional and local economies. The funding system flows from the conclusions. The Department's website therefore includes a series of issue papers that cover a range of subjects, not simply student finance. I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments, that one cannot resolve the finance issues without views on tackling the other relationships. I am determined to do that.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Is not the genuine problem the fact that we have become hooked on increasing student numbers in higher education? That has led to awful funding effects. Would not it be better to fund properly students who will benefit from higher education? We would not then have to consider top-ups.
    Mr. Clarke: I know that some hon. Gentlemen, especially on the Conservative Benches, subscribe to the "more is worse" school of thought on higher education. I do not. Our economy will succeed or fail in the next 20 or 30 years, depending on the productivity, effectiveness and education of our people in a competitive world economy. We were right to set our manifesto target of 50 per cent. of the population obtaining higher education qualifications.

    451
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has not been enough serious thinking for a long time about the nature of the higher education qualifications. For example, I believe that higher education in further education colleges and two-year foundation degrees make a major contribution. We need to consider a method of getting the academic and vocational streams to work far better. That matches the announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education made earlier, following the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. However, it is wrong to say that we should simply abandon an ambition for a large proportion of our population to get higher education.
    David Burnside: The Secretary of State will realise the importance in university funding of the allocation of funding for research, both for educational purposes and for the relationship with industry and inward investment. Does he share my alarm at the expenditure per head across the four parts of the United Kingdom? In Northern Ireland it is only £15 a head; in England, it is £19; in Wales, £22; and in Scotland, £35. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to increase the research expenditure in universities in Northern Ireland and England?
    Mr. Clarke: I have not studied the particular national comparisons that the hon. Gentleman has just given me, but I will certainly do so. I agree with him that research is an absolutely vital dynamic aspect of the regeneration of economies in all parts of the United Kingdom. Universities need to be better—there are issues about the governance of universities in this regard—at going out and identifying the kind of research that will enable them to succeed, and at making things happen in a much better way. We already concentrate our state research allocation, through the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils, very sharply indeed on a relatively small number of universities.
    The only general conclusion that I shall give beyond that is to say that when investors in research—major companies and corporations—are considering their investments, they examine both the quality of the institution and the social and political environment in which it lives. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues need to work, as I know that they are, to get the best possible environment in Northern Ireland, so that people will want to invest there, in research and in other areas.
    Mr. Damian Green: It is understandable that the Secretary of State does not want to comment on every speculation that we hear about top-up fees, even—or perhaps especially—those floated by his own Cabinet colleagues. Will he, however, rule out at least one of them, which came in briefing papers from his own Department? It is the idea that every student, including those from poor families, should be paying fees. That sits very oddly with every other part of the Government's rhetoric. Will the right hon. Gentleman disown that idea now?
    Mr. Clarke: There is not an idea to disown. What I will disown is any idea that we intend to put in a system that will discriminate further than the current one
    452
    already does against people wanting to come through from poorer families. There is a massive waste of talent at the moment, involving people who have the capacity to benefit from a university education and to contribute to the economy, but who simply do not come through The biggest possible indictment of the way in which the university system has evolved over these last years is that, as it has expanded, the proportion of children going into university from working class backgrounds has stayed the same. That is an indictment that we have to address, and I hope that we will do so.
    Finally, I am getting representations from various people on the Conservative Back Benches about the issues that we should be addressing, and I would advise the hon. Gentleman as a candid friend, if I may, that he should talk to his colleagues to ensure that he can speak in a united way for the Conservative party in this debate.
    Mr. Green: I would like to think that the Secretary of State can speak with a united voice for the whole Cabinet, but that is not true either, so he needs to look closer to home at his own problems. Indeed, it seems that he cannot even speak for his own Department. If he will not disown the document that I have here, all his talk about increasing access to higher education is so much hot air, given the ideas that his own Department is floating, his admission this morning and the admission of the Minister responsible for higher education last week. She said that the Government had not just failed, but widened the social divide in higher education. Does not that show that, six years in, the Government have failed miserably to meet their aim of getting disadvantaged students to university? Will the Secretary of State therefore answer the central question: why does he think—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When I rise to my feet I expect the hon. Gentleman to sit down. Perhaps we might also have a shorter answer this time.
    Mr. Clarke: My short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a 36 per cent. reduction in funding per student under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree, as I do, with our noble Friend Lord Hattersley, who wrote last week that a graduate tax was the only fair way of resolving the problems of funding in higher education, and that, to be effective, it would have to apply not only to future graduates but to present graduates such as my right hon. Friend and me?
    Mr. Clarke: I read what our noble Friend said with great interest, and I think that he has a real point. That is why, in the article that I wrote for The Independent on Sunday on this matter, I referred to the contribution of alumni to universities. It is striking to see how alumni in the United States make a major contribution to the endowment of universities—massively more than happens in this country. That raises precisely the question that my hon. Friend has asked, and we need to look at that matter directly.
    Mr. David Rendel: On 8 February last year, in answer to a question on top-up fees from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the previous Secretary of State said:
    "We introduced the new funding arrangements for students and for repayment precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges."—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1061.]
    What has changed?
    Mr. Clarke: What has changed is that we are having an overall review of all the various funding sources in the round. What remains the case in all respects is that the state will continue to provide, under any possible picture, the absolutely giant lion's share of university funding. The question that arises then is the balance between the contribution that the individual should make—if so, how much and by what route, which is the issue that we talked about earlier—and that which any alumnus might make by the process that we have discussed, as well as that which the economy should make in relation, for example, to business that moves forward. The best way to address that issue is to have a very open debate on it, which is what I am trying to stimulate and encourage. That is the way to proceed, and I wish that other opposition parties would participate openly in the debate rather than simply make opportunist points as they come up.

    Eastern Region Schools
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What is the forecast spending by his Department on schools in the eastern region for 2002–03 to 2005–06. [81973]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): In 2002–03, education revenue funding in the eastern region totals approximately £2.8 billion. That includes standard spending assessment and grant. Capital funding in the region this year is over £351 million. Figures for general funding for next year and future years will be announced in December.
    Mr. Blizzard: Few schools in my area have not benefited from substantial building improvements and more information technology provision to create a better learning environment that results from the Government's decision to invest heavily in education. However, does my hon. Friend agree that successful learning also requires good classroom discipline, which means dealing effectively with disruptive pupils, but not just by throwing them out on the street, where they create more trouble? Will he invest part of the substantial sums that he has mentioned in more pupil referral units and consider in particular areas of the country such as mine, where provision is virtually non-existent?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is important that we continue to give head teachers the right to exclude severely disruptive pupils. Alongside that, however, we take responsibility for ensuring that excluded pupils have access to high quality and full-time education, which is why the Government were delighted to honour their commitment that, in September,
    454
    all permanently excluded pupils would have access to a full-time education. We have 369 pupil referral units nationally and 60 new units have opened since January 2002. We intend for more to be developed as part of a co-ordinated behaviour and discipline strategy.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Are Ministers aware that although Wymondham high school in my constituency is 39th of 39 in terms of funding in the county of Norfolk, it is first of 39 in terms of GCSE results, despite having 19 mobile classrooms housing a third of the student population? Are they further aware that if Wymondham high school received just average funding, it would have an extra £300,000?
    The Minister for School Standards told me in a letter recently that he is unable to visit the school—I appreciate that South Shields is a long way from Norfolk—so will the Secretary of State visit Wymondham high school to see the excellent work being done by Mr. David Walker and his staff, as it is only five miles from the border of his constituency?
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that the Secretary of State has visited the school and regards it as excellent. He is even prepared to visit it again.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What assessment he has made of progress towards the Government's target of 50 per cent. of young people participating in higher education by 2010. [819741
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Our latest estimate of participation in higher education in 2001–02 is 41.5 per cent. That could be revised upwards after the new census data are finalised and reflected. We need an increase of less than one percentage point each year to achieve our target.
    Mr. Stunell: Since I tabled my question, the definition of the target has been changed yet again, for the fifth time. How long does the Minister expect the new target to be in place and can she explain how the House will ever know if it has been met?
    Margaret Hodge: The simple answer is that the definition has not been changed and we are on course to meet our target.
    John Cryer: Will the introduction of top-up fees make hitting the target less or more likely?
    Margaret Hodge: Everything we do in the student funding review will be focused on ensuring that we get more and wider participation in higher education so that we can meet our target to promote inclusion and economic growth.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given what the Minister told the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), will she guarantee that in no

    455
    circumstances, as Government policy evolves, will anyone on or below average earnings be obliged to pay a top-up fee?
    Margaret Hodge: Like others, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we publish our strategy document in January. I look forward to discussing with him then whether he has any better proposals to ensure that universities are properly funded and that all young people, whatever their backgrounds, have access to them.
    Mr. Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend—indeed, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his entire team—for their close personal interest in and support for my constituency, which contains fewer young people going to university that any other United Kingdom constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that 30 local educationalists met last Friday to discuss the problem, and that we shall be sending her a report? Is she also aware that one of our key problems is a culture of under-achievement in which parents do not aspire for their children? Will she note the contents of the report, and will she consider visiting my constituency to discuss the future of our young people with local residents and with those educationalists?
    Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing in his constituency to raise aspirations among young people and to widen participation. I look forward to visiting his constituency and talking to those who have joined him in his attempt to deal with the culture that he has described. I recognise the difficult problem to which he refers—that if we cannot persuade more young people to aim higher and see university as an option for them and not just for others, we shall have failed. My hon. Friend has set himself a major challenge in his constituency, and I support his aims.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What is the drop-out level in universities today, and what was it four years ago?
    Margaret Hodge: I am proud to say that the level has been maintained at 17 per cent. I am proud that, of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, we have the best record for keeping people in the system and ensuring that they acquire qualifications and degrees. We are never satisfied or complacent with where we are at, but we are proud of our record. The hon. Gentleman should join me in congratulating universities and students on achieving what they set out to achieve.

    Child Employment
    Mr. Chris Pond: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of children's employment on their educational attainment. [81976]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): There has been no recent assessment of the impact that children's employment has on their educational attainment.
    456
    We recognise, however, that properly structured and regulated part-time work can help children's development and preparation for working life.
    Mr. Pond: May I urge my hon. Friend to undertake an assessment as a matter of some urgency? As he will know, evidence suggests that moderate hours of employment can be beneficial to school-leavers' performance, but that excessive hours can be damaging. Will he instruct the Office for Standards in Education to inform schools of the possible damaging of inappropriate or excessive working hours, and also ask it, when considering the performance of local education authorities, to take account of the resources that they invest in enforcing the law on children's employment as it stands?
    Mr. Twigg: I am aware of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in this matter, and I admire his balanced approach. I am not in a position to instruct Ofsted to do anything, and I am not sure that it is the right organisation to instruct; but I agree that serious problems have been identified in surveys by, for instance, the Trades Union Congress and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I am happy to look into the matter further.

    Education Funding
    Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on future education funding in Cheshire. [81978]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions will be making a statement on local authority funding, including education funding for the coming financial year, in early December, along with the provisional settlement for 2003–04.
    Ann Winterton: Does the Minister appreciate that it is totally unacceptable for a child in Cheshire to be worth £355 less than a child of similar age in Hertfordshire, a county with an equivalent cost base, given that Cheshire is one of the worst-funded shire counties in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that it would be fair to allocate the same basic allowance to each child, and that extra weighting given because of, for instance, special needs, or given to areas with specific problems, should be transparent?
    Mr. Miliband: I can reassure the hon. Lady that I met some 200 heads from Cheshire at a conference in the north-west, who made a number of points about the funding system. A basic level of entitlement will apply to every child in the country, and the system for the allocation of additional educational needs that she asks about will indeed be transparent. It is based on independent survey work, which will ensure a proper scientific basis for the new funding system.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    CPS
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: If she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in the London area. [82001]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I believe that CPS London is becoming more effective. We regard sustaining the improvement in CPS London as essential, as Londoners are entitled to the protection of a good criminal justice system. London is the focus for much serious crime, and the reputation of CPS London sets the reputation of the CPS nationally.
    Mr. Gardiner: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her response, but there is a particular aspect of efficiency on which most Londoners—indeed, most of the national population—would like an assurance: that those who perpetrate hoax calls during the fire brigades dispute are being pursued with the full vigour of the CPS in London, with a view to prosecution.
    The Solicitor-General: I can reassure the House that that is certainly the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidance on charging in hoax call cases, which are being fast-tracked. I am not aware of any such cases in London, but in one case in west Yorkshire, a man is awaiting sentence for making hoax calls, and another man is being prosecuted in Staffordshire for making three hoax calls. A man has been arrested in Manchester, another is awaiting sentence in Cumbria, and an ongoing investigation is taking place in Lincolnshire. These cases are being taken very seriously, as the Prime Minister said on Wednesday.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I take a particular interest in the issue of racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. Can she tell us what progress has been made in tackling racism within CPS London, with particular reference to the staff and the prosecution policy?
    The Solicitor-General: I welcome and endorse the stance that my hon. Friend has taken on the issue of race discrimination. It is very important that CPS London, and the CPS as a whole, is a fair and non-discriminatory employer that offers equal opportunities to all staff, both lawyers and non-lawyers. It is also very important that, whether dealing with defendants or victims, it adopts a non-racist and equal attitude. Since investigating the CPS, the Commission for Racial Equality has approved it as having proper procedures, which will be taken forward.
    Mr. William Cash: The Attorney-General superintends the CPS; he acts as guardian of the public interest and of public safety, irrespective of party politics. In the wake of the firefighters' strike, there is secondary picketing on the tube in London, and the threat of it elsewhere. Yesterday, the Prime Minister
    458
    said in the House that it was for the courts to decide whether such action is illegal. How can the courts so decide if the CPS, and in particular the Attorney-General, does not initiate a prosecution, and will he do so? Given that the talks have collapsed and that the firefighters' strike is on—and in the absence of CPS prosecution, particularly in respect of London—does the Attorney-General intend, in the light of his reply to me of 18 November, to seek an injunction under section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, before it is too late?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right: in these matters, the Attorney-General's approach is concerned with the public interest, not the Government interest. However, if the question of initiating a prosecution arises, the police must first investigate and produce evidence of an offence for the CPS to consider. They have not done so in relation to any picketing offences, so it has not fallen to the CPS to consider files brought forward by the police concerning the suitability of prosecution.
    On the second point, about the Attorney-General's powers to seek an injunction in the courts against someone he suspects may be about to commit a criminal offence, if he does that his arguments will be set out to the court first, and thereafter he will explain to the Lords, and I will explain to the Commons, what the basis of that application was.
    Mr. John Burnett: There remain grave misgivings about the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service and others in the Burrell case. In the other place on 6 November, in reply to my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Attorney-General by implication criticised both the prosecution and the judge in relation to a public interest immunity application. Many would argue that more trenchant criticism was deserved. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the application should never have been made and assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that there is no further abuse of public interest immunity by the CPS?
    Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Finally—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has done very well so far.
    The Solicitor-General: There has been no abuse of public interest immunity by the CPS. If there had been, the Attorney-General and I would have taken it with absolute seriousness. If the prosecution has information that could help the defence, it is under a duty to disclose it, and in no circumstances should such information be withheld. That is fundamental to our principles of justice. There was never any intention to proceed in the Burrell case withholding information that could have helped the defence. The question was whether the CPS was to drop the case, in which case disclosure did not arise, or whether it was to proceed, in which case there would have been disclosure. It would have been quite wrong to go ahead with the case without disclosing the information that the Queen had subsequently given.
    David Winnick: But does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there remains some

    459
    public unease about the Burrell case, despite what she has said and what the Attorney-General has said in another place? That unease is certainly not confined to hardline republicans. Have any lessons been learned by the CPS in this case?
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service learns lessons from all its cases, as is right and proper. I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that there is no need for any public unease about this case. If anything was going wrong with prosecutions, the Attorney-General and I would be absolutely on to it, I would disclose it fully to the House, and we would want action taken to sort it out. That is not so in this case. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, and feel reassured accordingly.

    Fraud
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on prosecution of serious fraud cases. [82002]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of small firms organisations to discuss policy on prosecutions of fraud. [82005]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I receive letters about serious fraud cases, and the Attorney-General and I regularly meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office, Ros Wright. I have not met small firms' representatives specifically to discuss fraud, but I am well aware that it is a problem not only for big companies and rich individuals but for small business and people on low incomes. The work that the CPS and the SFO do on fraud is very important.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Solicitor-General aware that, in their response to the Criminal Justice Bill, the General Council of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association of England have said:
    "We oppose the suggestion of trial by judge alone in cases of suspected jury interference and fraud cases."?
    Does she agree that trial by jury must be maintained for all fraud cases? Were we to dispense with it, it could lead to a flood of actions for breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the views of the Bar Council on all aspects of the Criminal Justice Bill. We take its views extremely seriously. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Bill emanates from the Home Office. There will be a Second Reading and a full debate next week. I suggest that she raises those issues with the Home Secretary, and in the House next week.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Solicitor-General aware that small firms often suffer disproportionately from fraud? There have been many scams recently, including the Nigerian e-mail scams, the UBR reduction offer scam and the grant application offer scam. Such scams sap morale among small firms, and divert attention from the creation of wealth and jobs. Is the right hon. and learned Lady going to make an effort to tackle the problem and streamline the prosecution of fraud process?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is right to say that fraud is not a victimless, technical offence. It can cause redundancies, real hardship and the loss of homes and businesses. As far as we can tell, it costs the economy about £14 billion a year. We work closely on this matter with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and the Treasury. We need a cross-Government approach, and sufficient resources to investigate and prosecute fraud. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter today.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day [unallotted] on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party relating to policing in Northern Ireland.
A debate on the convention on the future of Europe.
TUESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Communications Bill, followed by a motion relating to estimates.
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER—Estimates [1st allotted Day].
There will be a debate on the Government's drugs policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will deliver a statement on the local government settlement on Thursday 5 December.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Extradition Bill. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER—Motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House.
Followed by a debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER—Debate on DEFRA issues on a substantive motion covering agriculture and the environment.
FRIDAY 13 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 12 December will be a debate on the "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy.
Hon Members: Oh!
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House, especially for that last item, which excited the House hugely.
Recently, we in the House of Commons have been through a so-called modernisation process. Our shift patterns have been changed, and we have a new single control centre—the Government Whips office. We have reduced the opportunities for second jobs and we are
462
also about to reduce our head count, as there will be fewer Scottish MPs. In light of all that, when will Labour Members get a pay rise of 16 per cent?
Just the other day in the other place, Baroness Symons said that
"the Foreign Secretary continues to have overall responsibility for Government policy on the European Union, including the convention. The Secretary of State is the Government's representative to the convention, and will therefore report to Parliament on his role in the convention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2002; Vol. 642, c. 635.]
A number of matters arise from that to which the Leader of the House would do well to give some thought. First, two Secretaries of State are responsible for one thing—the convention. Secondly, we have a Minister of State who answers oral and written questions on the convention in this House. Next Monday, however, one of the two Secretaries of State to whom I referred, the Secretary of State for Wales, will lead the debate on the convention. However, the real question is this: how can two Secretaries of State be responsible for exactly the same thing? More importantly, how will we have an opportunity in this House regularly to question and hold to account the Secretary of State for Wales on his role in the convention? The Foreign Office may well answer questions routinely at Question Time, but we want to get at the main man—we want the Secretary of State for Wales to be here, regularly, to answer questions. How will the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?
On 26 November, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"We have campaigned long and hard for Members of Parliament to have only one job in the House, and that is what I have done for the past 30 years since I have been a Member."—[Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 183.]
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister's rather astonishing statement represents the Government's policy on this important matter? Can he clarify whether the recent modernisation moves are a sinister hidden agenda to ensure that Members can and should have no interests outside this House?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for inciting bids for a 16 per cent. pay rise. I have consulted the representative of the control centre with me on the Front Bench, and he wishes to discourage any such anticipation on the part of my colleagues.
Like many other Members, I have been offended to see claims that Members of Parliament have had a 40 per cent. pay increase. That may have come as something of a surprise to them. For the record, and for the avoidance of doubt, since the 1997 election, the first four years showed an average increase in MPs' pay of 3 per cent. In 2001 and again in 2002 we have had increases of around 5 per cent., which were, of course, the product of precisely the kind of independent review that is being resisted by the Fire Brigades Union. I hope that that will restore some balance to some of the imbalanced reports that we have seen.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to explain to him the principle of collective responsibility, which is the basis on which the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs work in total harmony. It is a principle that may have escaped the

463
right hon. Gentleman, since I believe that he holds the record in the previous Parliament for rebelling on the Tory Benches against the Tory Whip. We, however, have a situation of total harmony and unity between those two Secretaries of State, both of whom speak for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman asks how Members can question the Secretary of State for Wales. My right hon. Friend will be here to take part in the debate on the convention of the future of Europe. If I may say so, that debate is the result of a request at business questions that we should have a debate on the Floor of the House on the future of the convention of Europe. For that reason, I hoped that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome it.
I am frightfully sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman's third point has slipped my mind.
Mr. Forth: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Cook: The Deputy Prime Minister speaks, as always, with great wisdom on these matters. I do not resile at all from what he said on that point. Indeed, if hon. Members consult Hansard about our debate on the change of hours, I made the very point that those who choose to spend their morning working on other matters should not dictate the hours for those in the House who are full-time professional Members of Parliament. The balance of the House has changed during my membership of it. The majority of Members are full-time Members of Parliament who are here on the precincts in the morning, and that certainly includes those on the Labour Benches. Of course we have no proposal to ban those who carry out other work. It is a matter for them and also for their constituents, who will no doubt bear it in mind.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House has, on many occasions since he took up his present post, emphasised the need for better scrutiny of the Government's legislation and has said that better scrutiny makes for better government. Can I draw his attention to the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was published a week ago, with 293 pages, 273 clauses and 26 schedules, still has no explanatory notes? Members of Parliament who seek to get to grips with this controversial and complicated Bill are receiving no help whatever. Since it is not apparently to be the subject of any pre-legislative scrutiny, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a good example of what he has been promoting? Does he not think that Ministers should be told firmly that they are not to publish Bills until the explanatory notes are available?
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, despite the useful change to ensure that written ministerial statements are listed properly instead of being hidden in the charade of planted questions, of the 22 listed in today's Order Paper only 18 were available in the Library immediately preceding business questions. I know that he understands that the purpose of the change—as the Modernisation Committee pointed out—was to ensure that all Members of the House, not just those who planted questions, were made aware of what was intended in the written statements. Will he please examine the matter again?
464
I understand that yesterday there was a written statement on wind power policy, which was accompanied by a useful briefing document. However, sufficient supplies of that document were not available yesterday for all Members to be able to read it. That completely undermines the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee, so will he look into that?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's references to power confirm what a high-powered Government we are.
I am aware of the difficulties in providing an explanatory memorandum for the Criminal Justice Bill and I have expressed my concern that it should be made available to Members at the earliest stage. I am advised that the text will be supplied today to the Clerk of Legislation in the Public Bill Office who is responsible for ordering it to be printed and laid before the House, and it will be available from tomorrow. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It should have been made available sooner.
I felt that the hon. Gentleman slightly forced his point when he said that only 18 of the 22 statements were available. To put it the other way around, it means that when he inquired—the situation may have changed since then—only four of the 22 were not available. The House should keep a sense of perspective. As I have said before, we aim to get all the written statements in by 12.30, but in the old days of planted questions, the planted answers would have been available only from 12.30 and many of them would not have been produced until long after that. We should not regard the change as a step backwards; on the contrary, it is very much a step forward in terms of transparency and ease of access and identification in Hansard—witness the way in which Members are now able to tease me on the point.
Mr. Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend may be aware that Candy Domestic Appliances Ltd., based in my constituency, recently announced the closure of its plant in Bromborough. He may also be aware that the company has made major investment in the site and that the unions and the work force have been exemplary in reaching productivity agreements to maintain and improve competitiveness. Despite all their efforts, however, the competitive disadvantage of the pound-euro exchange rate has proved an insurmountable barrier, and as a result about 200 dedicated and hard-working people may find that their jobs are at risk. Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for an early debate on the pound-euro exchange rate, as Candy is not alone in facing that often insurmountable barrier to competition?
Mr. Cook: On my hon. Friend's specific question, he will have heard the pre-Budget report yesterday, when the Chancellor said that the Government would complete their economic assessment in June. Whatever the outcome of that assessment may be, I am sure that the House will want to hold a number of debates on the issue.
On the issue that affects my hon. Friend's constituency, may I record our concern and regret that after such sterling efforts by both work force and management it has not been possible for the plant to continue? I know that my hon. Friend has worked hard

465
to try to secure a future for the company in his constituency and that he will do all that he can to ensure that every possible provision is made for those men and women who may be facing redundancy. I can assure him that he will receive full support from Departments in those efforts.
Sir George Young: Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), the Leader of the House will know that during the many years that he has been a Member, it has been our custom to debate, in the autumn, in Government time, either the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement or the autumn statement. The Leader of the House is denying us that opportunity this year. Will the House thus not conclude that, given the changing fortunes of the economy, as set out yesterday, the Government no longer wish to be held to account on that subject?
Mr. Cook: I am not denying the House anything. I have always sought very hard to accommodate the wishes of the House to debate matters of common interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As I have just said, we have a full programme of Second Reading debates, which reflects the Government's activism and the crowded legislative programme that we have announced, but I am well aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. I will discuss it with my colleagues, and we will, of course, consider what opportunities we can find to remind the House of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's excellent record in maintaining a sound economy, with the lowest inflation for a generation, the lowest unemployment that any of us can remember and the fastest growth of any of the big economies in the world.
Mr. Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the Chancellor announced a review of employers' liability insurance. Will he arrange for an early statement to the House to spell out exactly what that review's remit will be? For example, will it address not only the huge escalation in premiums, but the way that they are set? Will it also address the fact that many companies in my constituency are experiencing grave difficulty achieving renewals and that, even when their policies are renewed, they are fearful of making claims unless they face non-renewal in future? In the interests of joined-up government, will the Government consider the wider range of essential insurance policies that businesses need, for which they also face huge escalations in cost?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend helpfully underlines the importance of the review and why it is necessary. I am well aware of the concern among a number of hon. Members about the increase in premiums. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) raised this issue only the other week. My hon. Friend requests a statement; we will not be short of statements to the House in the weeks ahead, but I certainly think that this may be an occasion when, at an appropriate time, the Treasury may wish to consider using the new innovation of written statements, which we have provided.
Michael Fabricant: May I invite the Leader of the House to spend an evening with me in Lichfield? We could perhaps go to one of its elegant restaurants—perhaps the Eastern Eye—and then to Lichfield cathedral to hear one of the many concerts that are put on there. Perhaps then he might like to speak to his right hon. and hon. Friends about the contents of the Licensing Bill, which, if passed, will mean no more concerts in Lichfield cathedral and no more Lichfield festival; nor will there be any concerts in Worcester or Hereford cathedrals, or many others in the United Kingdom. When will the Licensing Bill appear for its Second Reading in the House?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation to dinner, which I shall communicate to my diary secretary, with my secret marking to put it at the bottom of the pile.
On the issue of substance that he raises, I reassure his constituents that the proposed provision on licensing public events in places of worship does not embrace any religious act of worship, for which no licence will be required, and that it will permit churches to hold five events a year, on each of three days, making a total of 15 days without licence. Of course the premises may be regularly used not for acts of worship, but for secular entertainment, however worthy and excellent.
Michael Fabricant: It is very worthy.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that it is extremely worthy and extremely excellent, so the hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents to ensure that they can hear it with the peace of mind of knowing that those premises are safe and that they can leave them in the event of an emergency. For that reason, any responsible Government must ensure adequate provision for places of public entertainment. If there were to be—God forbid—any disaster in Lichfield cathedral, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise the Government for not safeguarding it.
Mr. James Wray: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 96, on the child rescue alert scheme that has been piloted in Sussex?
[That this House welcomes the launch of Child Rescue Alert which will interrupt radio and television transmissions with urgent appeals if a child is in real danger of harm or death; feels that the system which is being pioneered in Sussex will save many lives; believes that the scheme will assist in the capture of the abductors of children before they can cause any harm; and furthermore hopes that this scheme will be used throughout the United Kingdom as soon as possible.]
Given that we live in a world of paedophiles and perverts who put children at risk, will he make time to debate the scheme when the report comes from Sussex so that we can implement it throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has just made a statement on sexual offences and unveiled a White Paper, which will in turn,

467
of course, result in legislation. His proposals have been widely welcomed. Of course that will provide the House with an opportunity to debate such matters further, and initiatives of the kind that my hon. Friend describes should certainly be considered carefully and assessed to discover whether they can have wider application.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the cost of living indices? I ask that because it is about time that we had an updated view of what people spend their income on week by week. He has just announced that we will hear about the local government settlement next Thursday, but it is becoming ever more difficult to explain to pensioners why, on one index, the state pension is increased, but by an amount that does not even cover the increase in their council tax bill. Whether council tax, the purchase of a car or mortgage interest should be included in the various formulae should be debated, and those formulae brought up to date.
Mr. Cook: A number of issues need to be discussed and examined, and I have no doubt that the matter will be discussed inside and outside the House, particularly in relation to whether the general retail prices index adequately reflects the spending of a pensioner household. Having said that, I would make two points. First, whatever measure we have of RPI, inflation is lower than it has been for three decades, which is an achievement that we intend to maintain. Secondly, under this Government, substantial funds have been made available to local government in a way that was not experienced under the previous Conservative Government. Local authorities must live within their means, and must consider carefully decisions on taxation within their remit, but there is no local authority in Britain that has not done much better over the past five years than it could have dreamt of doing in the previous five years of the Conservative Government.
Alan Simpson: Could the House have an opportunity to debate the document "Agenda for Change" that appears to have been launched in today's press. It would seem to offer a public sector pay settlement that is based on double-digit pay increases for the lowest-paid public sector workers, increased investment to raise the standards of public services, a modernisation agenda written by the unions themselves, and, crucially, no job losses. In the space that exists in the current firefighters' dispute, will the Prime Minister invite the Fire Brigades Union to No. 10 Downing street to discuss its agenda for change and to help get us out of the hole into which we appear to have been digging ourselves?
Mr. Cook: On my hon. Friend's latter point, we have repeatedly invited the Fire Brigades Union to return to the negotiating table and to discuss proposals for modernisation. Those modernisation proposals must not simply be the agenda of the Fire Brigades Union—which it is welcome to put on the table—but must embrace the interesting proposals in the Bain review on where real efficiency and productivity gains can be
468
made. For instance, there could be an end to the current practice by which full-time firefighters decline to get on the same fire engine as part-time firefighters—
Alan Simpson: Not true.
Mr. Cook: I am afraid that that is the case.
On my hon. Friend's other point, I presume from what he says that he welcomes the conclusion of the "Agenda for Change" outcome. I certainly think that there is much to commend it to the House and to the public, particularly in the way that it will address some of those who are lowest paid in the public service. I hope that my hon. Friend will find it in himself wholeheartedly to welcome and support that, without necessarily using it as a ramp for other settlements.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that in a knowledge-based age our best assets are well-trained young people. Could we therefore have a statement from the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland on why, when some young people are told that no discretionary awards are available, education boards are not able to award all the money that has been allocated for discretionary awards? Is there a case to be made for lowering the standard of assessment so that those awards can be effectively used?
Mr. Cook: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland is active in trying to make sure that we build on the success that has been secured in the Northern Ireland education system. I shall happily draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to her attention, and I am sure that she will want to communicate directly with him.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I recognise the pressures of the Government's legislative programme, but could consideration sometimes be given to allowing two days for debates on vital issues such as Iraq? Last Monday, despite a stringent time limit on speeches, which tended to restrict interventions, many Members were still waiting to speak at the end of the debate, while others had given up. Surely such momentous matters merit thorough consideration.
Mr. Cook: I do not disagree that the matter requires thorough consideration and I know that there is substantial interest in it throughout the House. There is significant pressure on the available time in the Chamber for business of the House and, in present circumstances, I cannot hold out the promise of a two-day debate on Iraq or any other subject. However, I am mindful of the interest in such matters and will obviously bear in mind how much time we can provide in future.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on procedures for the listing of buildings? It is possible for a building to be listed without the knowledge of the owner and without disclosure of the identity of the applicant. That has happened to a church in my constituency, Cranham All Saints, which wanted to knock down and rebuild a Victorian church hall that had gone beyond the point of

469
easy maintenance and repair. It has caused enormous complications in the planning process and there seem to be injustices in the listing procedures.
Mr. Cook: No doubt there are opportunities for ensuring that the process works better and more transparently, and there will be a chance to examine such issues in the forthcoming planning Bill. As a matter of principle, the consent of the owner of a building should not be a condition of the listing of a building. There will be times when the opinion of a building's owners is at variance with that of the general community on the value of the building, its importance to the community and townscape, and the importance of preserving it.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will know that there have been two recent debates on local government finance. Both were curtailed and many hon. Members did not have the chance to put the case for their boroughs or districts. Most importantly, I have not been able to put the case for the London borough of Havering, which has traditionally been caned by the standard spending assessment, although we have done marginally better in the past five years. Will it be possible to debate the statement when it is made on 5 December?
Mr. Cook: It would be wrong to have a debate on 5 December because the figures will have only just been shared with the House. We announced that statement today because we know of the considerable interest among Members, such as my hon. Friend, in what will be allocated to their local authority, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions was keen that there should be advance notice of that. I look forward to a well attended statement next Thursday.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the pressing issue of shortages of general practitioners around the United Kingdom, not least in my constituency of Rayleigh, which has the fourth highest ratio of patients to GPs? The debate would allow us to press the Government on their proposals for increasing the supply of domestically trained GPs instead of relying, as they increasingly do, on the sticking-plaster solution of desperately trying to recruit doctors from abroad to plug the gaps.
Mr. Cook: I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that more GPs are in Britain now than ever before and more people are in training to become GPs than ever before. There are certainly more than there were when the Government he supported were in office. That is a substantial step forward.
Of course we recognise that things are not satisfactory in every part of Britain and we shall continue to address the problem. That is why we have considered a number of solutions, especially providing financial incentives for people to become GPs and to stay GPs. We are looking at where it might be possible to find people with the appropriate training and standards to come to Britain to help us to achieve our objective of ensuring that we serve
470
the British public. We will consider all solutions, not just one. Let us not lose sight of the fact that more people are working as GPs than was ever the case under the Conservative Government.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Has my right hon. Friend seen this week's report by Lord Carlile, who was appointed by the Government to oversee the workings of the Terrorism Act 2000? It described the network of small ports and small airstrips in this country as a "soft underbelly" that could be exploited by terrorists trying to smuggle in deadly materials. As someone who represents a small port, Lowestoft, which I know my right hon. Friend has visited, may I ask him whether a Minister could come to the House to make a statement about the report, to reassure people and to explain what can be done to minimise the risk identified?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend does his constituency an injustice: Lowestoft is not that small a port, but one of considerable significance. I am aware of Lord Carlile's report, which is the product of the new system that we have put in place. We welcome the general tenor of the report. It makes a number of detailed suggestions, and we will want to consider carefully how we respond to them. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being taken very seriously in government, and we will certainly want to respond positively where we can.
Pete Wishart: As a patriotic Scot, the Leader of the House will know that on Saturday we celebrate St. Andrew's day, so I wonder whether he is open to the suggestion that in future we hold a general debate on Scottish issues on or around St. Andrew's day, similar to that afforded to our Welsh colleagues on St. David's day.
Hon. Members: What about St. George's day?
Mr. Cook: Of course I am well aware that Saturday is St. Andrew's day; indeed, I intend to spend it celebrating in my constituency at a St. Andrew's day dinner in the excellent club of the very successful Livingston football team. I hear the bid for St. George's day too, and I say to hon. Members that not a week goes by in Parliament without our debating issues of considerable interest to Scotland and to England. I will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board. St. Andrew's day will not come round for another full year and we will have to weigh the matter then against the pressure of business. I am confident, however, that it will fall on the same date as it has this year.
John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at Prime Minister's questions yesterday the Prime Minister answered a question on hoax calls by saying that 7 per cent. of calls are hoaxes. That figure applies only to the present situation with the fire service; the total proportion, as BT intimated to me today, is 50 per cent., which means that there are about 12.5 million hoax calls a year. Will my right hon. Friend secure a statement or a debate about that practice, which puts people's lives at risk?
Mr. Cook: I do not think that by referring to the figure of 7 per cent. the Prime Minister was in any way trying

471
to minimise the scale of the diversion and danger caused by hoax calls. Even 1 per cent. is far too many. I am sure that all hon. Members would join me in deploring those who frivolously and wilfully divert important resources, with what could be life-threatening results. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government and the forces of law and order take a severe view of that practice, but I hope that the community will exert pressure to make sure that people realise that it is in their own interests to behave responsibly and not to wantonly misuse the rare resources available to deal with emergencies.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: First, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure that the whole House is pleased to see his Parliamentary Private Secretary in his place, further dispelling press reports that he was a rebel on Iraq?
Secondly, on a much more serious note, the Leader of the House will be aware that the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates daily. Surely, as we have responsibilities in that country, it is important that Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to make statements and to lead debates in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Cook: First, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course I always rise with greater ease of mind knowing that my back is being safely guarded. He also gives me an opportunity to put right the error in the Hansard of the other night: if he consults the Division list he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) allegedly appeared in both Divisions. I am authorised by my hon. Friend to state that he voted only once, and it was with the Government.
On the serious issue of Zimbabwe, I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. The situation continues to deteriorate. Familiar though I am with the behaviour of the Mugabe regime, even I have great difficulty comprehending a regime that will deny food aid to starving people on the basis of political preference, and I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn that activity. We will continue to do all that we can to exert international pressure for a more responsible attitude on the part of that regime.
Mr. David Heath: Can I return to the subject of employers and public liability insurance? Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate? For some months I have been trying without success to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject. In my constituency, not unlike others, businesses are going out of business simply because of the exorbitant premiums that they are being asked to pay or because they cannot get insurance which they are required by law to have. The opaque reference yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a review by the Department for Work and Pensions suggested that that should be informed by the experiences of hon. Members, who I am sure have useful information to impart to the Government.
Mr. Cook: I am relieved to tell the House that I have no influence on the allocation of Adjournment debates and do not seek any, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persist in the hope of greater success in future. On the issue of substance, he raised a matter that has now
472
been raised in business questions in the past two weeks by a number of Members. Plainly, it is a serious constituency issue in many quarters. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will note what has been said. Plainly, the Department for Work and Pensions will wish to consider an appropriate follow-up to the Chancellor's remarks to provide fuller information on the intended review.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House consider approaching the Minister for Sport for a statement or preferably a debate on the growing feeling that it is time to consider introducing safe standing areas at Premiership football grounds? That debate has been called for by The Southern Daily Echo, which serves Southampton and the New Forest. Experienced people such as former Southampton manager Lawrie McMenemy, who was present at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, told the Echo's campaign:
"There is enough evidence now to prove that standing areas should be allowed and would not cause any problems if they were in areas behind the seated portions of the ground."
This is an occasion where a past tragedy should not be allowed to obscure the advances in technology that enable safe seating to be considered in future.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he made his point. My own experience of attending Livingston football matches is in a modern all-seater stadium—[Interruption.] No, there is a large attendance, and we have sought to foster a family atmosphere, which is important and provides for the future of football audiences. There are divided views on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have long realised that if I wish to maintain a position as a consensual Leader of the House I should avoid expressing too strong an opinion about football, but I will convey his point to the Minister for Sport.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we please have a debate on small businesses? The annual staging of such a debate was once an established and welcome feature of the affairs of the House. Given that more than 99 per cent. of companies in the United Kingdom employ fewer than 100 people; that they account for approximately 50 per cent. of the private sector work force; and that they generate roughly two fifths of our national output, does the right hon. Gentleman concede that we need urgently to consider the sea of regulation facing them, as it is deeper and more hazardous than any with which they have previously had to contend?
Mr. Cook: On the last point, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that for a period I spoke for the Opposition on trade and industry at the Dispatch Box. During that time, I witnessed a flood of regulation from the Conservative Government.
Mr. Bercow: That was not my fault.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for anything done by the previous Government, but we yearn for the day when an Opposition Member stands up and says, "It was my responsibility."

473
On the issue of a debate on small businesses, I am happy to take that on board and consider it against other competing priorities. Yes, we would very much welcome an opportunity to debate initiatives that we have taken on small business, particularly the introduction of the zero tax rate for small businesses, which only yesterday was extended to many more small businesses and has been widely welcomed in today's press.

Airports Consultation
1.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the Government's consultation on airports capacity.
As I set out in my statement to the House in July, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on air travel. As part of that, we will set out our views on how much additional airport capacity is needed and where it should be sited. In advance of the White Paper, we published seven consultation papers seeking views on a wide number of options throughout the United Kingdom. Part of that consultation included consideration of capacity in the south-east of England. A number of options were canvassed. One of the key questions was the importance of an international hub airport in the south-east and where it should be sited.
As I said in July, one option was to build at Heathrow, a second option was at Stansted, and a third option was a completely new airport at Cliffe. As well as the question of a hub airport, the south-east consultation paper looked at other matters, including where any new capacity should be located. I told the House in July that I had decided to exclude further development at Gatwick because of a legal agreement ruling out the construction of a new runway before 2019. That decision was challenged last month, when Kent county council and Medway council applied for a judicial review of that decision. On Tuesday the court upheld that challenge.
It might be useful to remind the House why the Government took the decision to exclude Gatwick. I also want to set out how the Government intend to proceed in the light of the court's ruling. The facts in relation to the Government's decision were set out in a witness statement put before the court. I have arranged to place a copy of that statement in the Library. I have also sent a copy of it to the principal Opposition spokesmen, along with this statement, in the usual way.
Briefly, the facts are these. The Government, prior to publishing the consultation papers, had to consider whether to include proposals in relation to Gatwick airport. In particular, they had to consider whether they should ask Parliament to overturn an agreement made in 1979 between the then publicly owned British Airports Authority and West Sussex county council.
The Government decided that it would be highly undesirable to do so as a matter of policy. We considered it important that people should be able to continue to rely on such a legally binding agreement. Accordingly, the Government reached the conclusion in respect of the 1979 agreement that although they could ask Parliament to overturn it, they would consider it appropriate to do so only if there was demonstrably no alternative way forward. That was clearly not the case, having regard to the other options before them.
As the House knows, the court took a different view. It held that people ought to have an opportunity to present their case on expansion at Gatwick. As I made clear in my written statement yesterday, although the court granted leave for the Government to appeal against this decision, I have decided not to do so.

475
Inevitably, an appeal would be a lengthy and prolonged process and would result in an extensive period of uncertainty for people up and down the country. That is in no one's interest.
I have therefore decided that the consultation, due to end on 30 November, will be kept open until we have consulted on options in relation to Gatwick. It is only two days since we received the judgment and its implications need to be considered further, but I wanted to keep the House informed about how I intend to proceed. I intend to publish a further paper, following the decision to include Gatwick in the consultation. I will publish these further options in the new year. The consultation period will run for four months from then.
It follows, therefore, that all representations received so far will be considered, together with additional representations that follow from the decision to include Gatwick. As I told the House on 19 November, this is an opportunity for anyone in the country to express their views on all the options in the consultation, as well as to put forward reasonable alternatives. Inevitably the White Paper, which I had hoped to publish in the first part of next year, will be delayed, at least until the autumn of next year.
The Government took the decision to exclude Gatwick because they wanted to honour an agreement. The court has taken a different view. Rather than contest that judgment, I have decided that the right thing to do is to accept it and consult, but inevitably and regrettably, it means an extended period of uncertainty for everyone. The important thing now is to get on and reach a conclusion on what is a critical matter for the future of this country.
Mr. Tim Collins: May I thank the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in providing a copy of his statement in advance? I should also like to wish him a happy birthday. I suspect that this judgment is not the birthday present he would have chosen, but I none the less offer him my congratulations.
Does the Secretary of State accept that his entire consultation exercise has been flawed from the start? The High Court's conclusion that it was irrational comes on top of criticism from many quarters that it was rushed and based on inaccurate and misleading figures; contained misprints that required copies to be recalled and reprinted; involved four-week delays for some people in getting hold of copies of the consultation documents; and included questionnaires that many people saw as profoundly loaded.
Is it not the case that Gatwick was not the only important option to be left out? Why was the preferred option of Birmingham airport omitted? Why did the right hon. Gentleman consult on a sort of runway layout for Heathrow that even BAA Heathrow does not want? Will he comment on the belief of many in the Rugby area that some of the figures in his documents for that area relate to a completely different site two miles away from the one described? Given the immense importance of the issue to large numbers of communities, many of which had no idea before 23 July of what was being contemplated for them, would it not have been more sensible from the start to allow more than a 16-week period—most of it in the summer—for people to respond?
476
We very much welcome the Secretary of State's decision in the light of the court judgment to extend the consultation. The Opposition were calling for such an extension even in advance of the judgment. However, will he clarify one point from his statement? Does the extension apply to the whole country or only to the south-eastern regional consultation? Does he recognise that many groups, and not only those in the south-east, will wish to revisit their evidence in the light of the re-inclusion of Gatwick?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, while he is right to say that decisions cannot be indefinitely delayed, they must be taken in the right and proper way and after genuine consultation? Will he pledge to publish the results of the full consultation well in advance of reaching conclusions, so that everyone can judge the basis on which he will make decisions? Will he give an undertaking that he and his Ministers will visit every affected site before announcing conclusions? Does he not recognise that he owes those communities that assurance at least?
Does the Secretary of State accept that if his final conclusions are to be seen as fair and reasonable by all involved, he and his Department need to listen more, consult properly and start getting things right, rather than hopelessly wrong?
Mr. Darling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes in respect of my birthday. Last year, my former private office was kind enough to present me with a CD containing the greatest hits of Leonard Cohen. This year, the courts have not been quite so kind to me. I have always found Leonard Cohen more uplifting than many court judgments.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I remind him that when I announced the consultation in July, he was kind enough in making a very reasoned response on behalf of the Opposition to commend me for the spirit in which I had launched the consultation. He rightly went on to urge me to bring it to a swift conclusion. I have endeavoured to do that, but I recognise that a problem has arisen in relation to Gatwick that I must deal with.
On the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, Birmingham airport and options there are included in the consultation, as is Heathrow. I have always made it clear—I did so not only in July, but as recently as November, when we had an extended Question Time on this matter—that it is open to people not only to respond to what the Government canvassed in their options, but to bring forward any alternatives. After all, we are considering one of the most profoundly important decisions that will be taken in this Parliament about what to do in relation not only to a hub airport, but to other airport capacity. That is why I agree with him that it is important to get it right. People must remember that they can make whatever representations they think appropriate. The Government will then publish a White Paper, but afterwards, any decision to build an airport will be taken on a commercial basis by that airport's operator. It is not as if the White Paper is the end of the road. What it does is provide a framework against which everyone can plan.
I regret that as a result of the judgment, the process will take longer than I anticipated. It will give people four months longer. The hon. Gentleman asked whether

477
the consultation was open to the whole country or only the south-east. The whole consultation remains open, because, manifestly, a decision on any of the London airports has implications for the rest of the country.
The whole consultation will therefore remain open and I hope that people will enter into the spirit of it by accepting that they have a chance to make representations on Gatwick, but that, for everyone's good, we must try to reach a conclusion by the end of next year. Waiting longer is in nobody's interests, especially those who might be affected by expansion.
Mr. Don Foster: I join the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) in thanking the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement and wishing him a happy birthday. However, he has left us dangling in uncertainty about his birthday present from his new private office.
Although I welcome and acknowledge the need for the Secretary of State's decision, does he recognise that the High Court's judgment knocks a further hole in a set of deeply flawed consultation documents? Does it not provide an opportunity for the new documents to tackle not only the Gatwick issue but some of the other flaws? Does he accept that the current documents are based on the long discredited predict-and-provide approach rather than managing demand? Does he also accept that the growth figures in the documents unjustifiably assume that the current tax benefits to the airline industry, such as no aviation fuel duty or no VAT on tickets will continue, when that is unlikely?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an incorrect assumption about the economic benefits to continued air expansion in this country and that it is not necessarily beneficial for Britain to become an international airport transit lounge? Does he further accept that the new document provides an opportunity to cover sustainability, which is missing from the current documents? Is it not now time for the Government to live up to their categorical commitment that aviation should meet its external costs?
The Secretary of State has an opportunity to correct some of the flaws; let us hope that he does that.
Mr. Darling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. For those who are interested, my new private office gave me a nice train set. At least they run on time!
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's subsidiary points. There is no question of anyone building airports on a predict-and-provide basis. As I have often said, the private sector will build and pay for any new airport capacity. It will not build an airport on spec; people do not do that.
Our objective must be to provide frameworks in which the commercial sector—the airlines as well as the people who run the airports—and people who live near airports can plan.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned economic benefits. The aviation industry, not only airports, greatly benefits this county, indirectly as well as directly. Heathrow must employ more than 100,000 people. The decision
478
that we make, especially on London airports, is therefore immensely important not only to the people involved but to the country.
Mr. Chris Mullin: During my 18 undistinguished months as aviation Minister, I learned two lessons about the aviation industry. First, its demands are insatiable; secondly, successive Governments have always given way to them. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the time has come to make a stand? Instead of building more runways, airports and terminals, he should consider a little demand management. Air travel is not a basic human right and it should he matched by environmental considerations.
Mr. Darling: I remember that my hon. Friend spent 18 months as aviation Minister. Perhaps I take a slightly different view from him. Half the country flew at least once last year. My hon. Friend may believe that that is wrong. By demand management, he means increasing the price of air travel. That will prevent some people from travelling. It is problematic for hon. Members to say that to our fellow countrymen.
I agree, and the consultation documents make it clear, that the aviation industry should pay the price of its environmental impact. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an announcement about that in the pre-Budget report. This is not, as my hon. Friend puts it, a question of giving in to the industry. We have to work out what we think the likely demand will be—of course it is critically important that we take into account the environmental impact—and to make sensible plans for that demand. As I said a moment ago, this industry is of immense importance to the country, and it is important that we get this right. I am in no doubt about this. I look at the issue from the point of view of the country, rather than the industry, because that is what the Government do. I do not, however, have the slight reluctance—I will not say antipathy—that my hon. Friend has in accepting that the industry might have something to contribute.
Mr. Francis Maude: Leaving aside the irony of a court of law reproving the Government for their reluctance to overturn a binding legal agreement between two public authorities—and leaving aside the merits of the case, which I believe are substantial—does the Secretary of State accept that his original decision to exclude Gatwick was correct, if only on the basis of that legal agreement? Does he also agree that the case for a new airport for the south-east, located on the coast—whatever configuration or option is chosen—remains very powerful, in that the flight paths of the growing aviation industry could be located over water rather than over people's houses? Given that a number of alternative proposals to the one in his original options paper for Cliffe have been put forward, will he use the enforced opportunity of an extended consultation period to ensure that those three or four different options for a new airport are fully exposed and consulted on?
Mr. Darling: Yes, the whole point of the consultation is to receive recommendations and representations, and if we receive serious, worked up proposals, of course we will look at them. That is the whole point. On the right

479
hon. Gentleman's first point—I remember that he said something similar in July—it is an irony, but it is one of those things that we have to live with.
Laura Moffatt: I firmly believe that my right hon. Friend has made the right decision not to appeal the judicial review, because to have done so would have left us with more discontent and a greater sense that there was no future for our airports in the south-east. Gatwick wants to be part of the future, and I therefore firmly believe that the right decision has been made. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents in Crawley that the process of deciding the future of airports in the south-east will be dealt with in Parliament? My constituents want to know where we are going and what the future will hold, and that we have a proper plan in place.
Mr. Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that we publish a White Paper next year, because to let the matter drag on would do no one any good. On my hon. Friend's point about an appeal, I do not think that any good would come of the Government's engaging in lengthy litigation that would take months and months. Whatever else the Government do, I do not think that it is our job to provide a living for more and more lawyers when we could be getting on with the job. I speak as a former lawyer, and I am not too bitter, although when I see what some of my learned friends are getting up to these days, I wonder whether I made the right decision all those years ago. It would be quite wrong to prolong this process, and I want to bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: To please the Secretary of State, I shall tell him that I was responsible for the last review of airport policy in the south-east, so I know how difficult the issues he faces are, and I commend his statement today. In that review, we were careful to leave open the possibility of an additional close parallel runway at Gatwick, not least because it would be less disruptive than building a new runway at one of the other airports, or, indeed, at Gatwick. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much importance h e attached to that possibility when he made his decision to exclude Gatwick from the consultation?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I know that he was involved in these considerations in 1995, and I always find it instructive to look back—so far as we are able, within the normal constraints—to see what happened to Ministers in earlier years. It is often very clear why nothing ever came of various proposals, and that does not apply only to transport.
In relation to Gatwick, as I told the House a few moments ago, because the Government decided as a first step, for the reasons that I set out, that it would not be right to overturn the 1979 agreement, it followed that we could not ask what were the best options for it. Clearly, however, they were considered earlier as part of the studies carried out before the consultation. Now that Gatwick has to be considered as a result of the court
480
ruling, we need to publish a further paper that will give options, no doubt including the question of the close runway referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
Fiona Mactaggart: May I commend the Secretary of State on his urgency? It is clear to me that, whether or not the court's decision is right, it can only be right for our economy and our environment to reach a conclusion on this important matter as swiftly as possible, because the longer we delay, the more damage will be done on both issues. In the consultation, will he ensure that people have an opportunity to raise the question whether we need only one hub airport for London or whether a different approach might be possible?
Mr. Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend in relation to urgency and whether there ought to be one hub airport or more. That is one issue that is canvassed in chapter 4 of the south-east study. There have been almost 50,000 respondents so far, some of whom have addressed those points. She is absolutely right that they are matters that we need to consider and we will consider them.
Mr. David Wilshire: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the consultation process, does the Secretary of State agree that the overarching priority must be an early decision and early action, which is why I welcome his decision not to drag matters out by appealing? Does he accept that the UK, the south-east region and Heathrow are already suffering from delay and uncertainty? Will he make it his new year's resolution to summon the courage to complete the consultation process and start building runways as soon as possible?
Ms Ann Coffey: Where?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right about the fact that the south-east is already congested. The analysis of the problem is relatively easy; the solution as to where is rather more problematic.
John McDonnell: Leonard Cohen has a lot to answer for:
"Like a bird on the wire,
Like a drunk in a midnight choir
I have tried"
always to be true. If we are to be true in the next stage of the consultation process, will my right hon. Friend consider re-issuing the documents so that they are accurate, including, in particular, information on compensation; information on public meetings, which should be advertised locally in my area, not in the Evening Standard only; BAA's commitment to a sixth terminal linked to the third runway; and BA's proposal to shift the runway to the east, which would demolish another part of my constituency? Also, will he meet community representatives, as he has met industry representatives over the past few months? Even if the decision were not one that my constituents could be happy with, at least they would be able to accept the process as relatively fair.
Mr. Darling: I am glad that we have found something in common. Clearly, we both listen to Leonard Cohen.

481
On Heathrow, as I have said to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others, if there are problems with the consultation exercise relating to either documents or procedure, he should let me or one of my fellow Ministers know and we will try to put them right. The matter is important and it is important that we get it right. We shall endeavour to do so.
Mr. Mark Prisk: For my constituents in Bishop's Stortford, east Hertfordshire and the surrounding communities, the 16-week consultation process was rushed and ill prepared from the beginning. Now it has turned from tragedy to farce. Having accepted that the High Court judgment says that the Secretary of State's original decision was irrational and unjust, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept his responsibility for any resulting blight?
Mr. Darling: The court reached its decision on the narrow question of Gatwick. The judge held that people ought to be able to have their say; he was not asked to address the entire consultation
It is regrettable that the delay and uncertainty will continue for longer than any of us wanted, but we are where we are. We have the court judgment and I sense that the majority of Members want to bring matters to a conclusion, certainly next year. That is precisely what I want to do.
Dr. Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend that an early decision is essential? We do not want a repeat of the fiasco surrounding the uncertainty about the channel tunnel rail link's final route, which caused years of blight and other problems in my constituency. May I also tell my right hon. Friend that I deeply regret the action taken by Kent county council, which will cause blight, delay, uncertainty and misery for my constituents? Will he do all that he can to shorten the process? The four-month period he has recommended is too long: it will allow yet more months, possibly even years, of blight and uncertainty.
Mr. Darling: I understand the position of my hon. Friend and other north Kent Members who have made representations about the delay. When Kent county council took that action, it asked the judge to set aside what we were doing. The delay is a direct consequence of that, and we will just have to live with it. As I have said, this means that the White Paper will not be published until later next year, but I cannot try to short-circuit the process, not least because I do not particularly want to provide a fertile hunting ground for yet more lawyers who may seek to challenge the decision. The thing must be done properly, and I think that it can be done properly with a four-month consultation period. We must then try to reach a conclusion, because there will be an awful lot more debate to come.
Mr. John Taylor: It is difficult to imagine a greater cock-up—the most magisterial Government consultation, made more pompous by statistical assertions, extrapolations, tendentious questionnaires and bogus economics, all now in ruins. What comfort
482
has the Secretary of State for those of my constituents who would have been well content with natural growth at Birmingham airport within its existing perimeter?
Mr. Darling: When I spoke to the hon. Gentleman the other day, he was rather more reasonable. If he still wants to come and see me to discuss these matters, he would be well advised to go on being reasonable. However, I understand that he has a point to make, and I understand why he is doing so. Many people have made the same point about Birmingham, not least when I was in Birmingham recently. I would be happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman—and with one of his hon. Friends, who I think wants to come along with him.
Mr. James Plaskitt: I realise that my right hon. Friend has been put in a difficult position by the court decision, but does he appreciate the implications for the west midlands of what he has said about extending the consultation period? The siting of a new international airport near Rugby is being considered. The area has been seriously blighted by that proposal, and people were looking forward to an early resolution of the matter; but now the consultation period has been extended by a further four months. Can my right hon. Friend say anything of an interim nature about the west midlands, or must everything be delayed for four months?
Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, I wanted to bring the matter to a conclusion early next year. I expected to do so well before the summer, precisely to deal with the concerns felt by him and by other Members, not just in the west midlands but elsewhere. Unfortunately, because of Kent county council's action and various issues raised by it, I must proceed in a manner that is entirely proper and does justice to all the consultation. That means that the White Paper cannot now be published until the end of the year, which is regrettable, but people are perfectly entitled to go to court if they think it right. The judge took a different view from the Government. I have explained a number of times why I think it better not to prolong matters by spending months in the appeal courts—I think we should now get on with it—but I entirely understand what my hon. Friend has said, not just today but on previous occasions.
Mr. Michael Trend: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, but given this opportune hiatus he will clearly have to republish a number of documents. Could the Government spell out more clearly their position on such questions as mitigation and guarantees, especially in the context of noise of pollution and air quality? As the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) implied, during the consultation process hitherto people have raised such matters repeatedly with us, as their representatives.
Mr. Darling: As I said, my intention is to publish a further consultation paper that flows from the Gatwick decision. However, the existing consultation continues, and it is important to make it clear to people that they need not resubmit everything that they have submitted already. As I have pointed out, some 50,000 representations have already been received.

483
I shall reflect on mitigation and the various environmental concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised, but I want to avoid prolonging matters for month after month, because that is in nobody's interests. For a start, that is not fair on those who live near airports; nor, indeed, is it good for anybody. I want to proceed as efficiently as I can, consistent with my obligations to consult and to behave in a way that is beyond criticism.
Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for the speed with which he has entered into the undoubtedly sensitive area of tackling this country's long-term aviation needs. That is in marked contrast to the Conservatives, who simply ran away from this subject during 18 years in government. Could he ensure that public consultation is advertised much more 'widely than in just those areas closest to Heathrow airport? My constituents suffer—as do many people in London and the south-east—from overflights, and it would help if public meetings were advertised much more widely across London. On the environmental concerns, I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that this Government are arguing in the international community for a date by which a tax will be placed on aviation fuel.
Mr. Darling: On the latter point, as the consultation documents make clear, we believe that this issue ought to be resolved. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware from her previous experience that achieving international agreement on these matters is difficult, because many countries start from a completely different point of view.
As for the next few months, I should again make it clear that it is open to anyone throughout the length and breadth of the country to make representations. There is no restriction on that—indeed, I understand that some quarter of a million letters and pieces of information have been sent out to people across the country. In publishing the further document that will flow from the Gatwick decision, I want to ensure that people are aware of that point, but it is not necessary to retramp over every inch of the ground that we have covered; we simply need to ensure that we pick up what is necessary following the Gatwick decision, while emphasising that it is open to anyone, anywhere to make representations. Of course, whatever we decide on the London airports has implications not just for London and the south-east, but for the rest of the country.
John Barrett: Twice the Secretary of State has said that he regrets the extension of the period of uncertainty as to the future of several of the communities affected by this lengthening process. What message will he give to those communities affected by the blight of this uncertain period, who live under flight paths and very close to airports? I am thinking of villages such as Kirkliston and Newbridge, in my constituency, which the Secretary of State knows well.
Mr. Darling: I do indeed know them well. Because Kent county council challenged the Government and succeeded—at least to the material extent of getting Gatwick back into the process—we have inevitably had to consult on these issues. There is no getting away from that. It is of course regrettable that the period of
484
consultation has extended as a result. It would have been nice to be able to say, "Let's treat Gatwick separately," but we cannot because, as one of the major London airports, it clearly has an impact on the rest of the UK—not least on Edinburgh, which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There are many Edinburgh flights to Gatwick, as well as to London Heathrow, and I am afraid that we must consider that. I hope that we can bring these matters to a conclusion as quickly as possible next year, but I am certain that we are now talking about the autumn, because we cannot possibly do justice to a consultation and get something out before the summer recess.
Paul Clark: May I commend the Secretary of State on his clear response to the situation within 48 hours of the judgment—an action that will be warmly welcomed by the people of north Kent? Yesterday's written statement, which pointed out that he will not seek to appeal, was also warmly welcomed by the hundreds of people who lobbied Parliament against the Cliffe proposal.
The Secretary of State said that a White Paper should be published next year. I urge him to stick to that, for all the reasons of continuing blight and anguish that have been given. In light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), is he aware that the people of Essex were very concerned yesterday that they had had no exhibition or involvement, even though some of them, for example at Canvey Island, are very close to the Cliffe site?
Mr. Darling: There is no need for people to wait for an exhibition or an invitation to respond. There is no reason why anyone with a view on Cliffe or Stansted, whether they are affected or not, should not make representations. About 50,000 representations have been received on the White Paper, as I have now said two or three times. My hon. Friend knows that my original intention was to publish the White Paper early next year, and I hoped to resolve the matter in that way once and for all, but unfortunately the decision taken by the county council resulted in the very delay that, I suspect, many people in Kent did not want.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: What scale of fees is NOP charging for its involvement in the questionnaires, and will the Secretary of State refuse to pay those fees? Is he aware of the serious flaws in the questionnaires from the midlands and, I understand, from Wales? They talk about the number of flights currently going from the midlands to the south-east, but there are no flights scheduled from the midlands—or, I understand, from Wales—to the south-east. As a lawyer, does he consider that there might be grounds for judicial review or challenge if any decision is based on such a flawed questionnaire?
Mr. Darling: I was always taught never to give free legal advice, and I intend to stick to that. One can get struck off for it
The questionnaires were issued because it was put to us that there were some people who, for whatever reason, did not want to write but wanted some way of expressing a view. Questionnaires can never be conclusive in themselves. The Government will look at

485
them, because they are one way of gauging opinion, but we will also look at all the letters and representations, including those from Members of Parliament, before reaching a view. When we publish the White Paper there will certainly be an opportunity to debate it in the House. I expect that hon. Members will have many views—not, I suspect, along party lines—and those will help to inform our decision. Of course, there are other opportunities to raise these matters in the House well in advance of the White Paper.
Mr. Chris Pond: My right hon. Friend will know that this is the worst possible news for my constituents, and especially for the 3,000 who signed the Kent Messenger petition that I delivered to him yesterday. They will welcome his sense of urgency, but he will be aware that, in addition to the anxiety that this is causing, it is holding back many of the infrastructure developments and other plans in the Thames gateway, and in particular the north Kent end. Will he give whatever reassurance he can to both the public and the private partners in the Thames gateway developments that he will reach a decision and publish the White Paper as early as possible, as the uncertainty is really starting to cost us dear?
Mr. Darling: We will do whatever we can to resolve the uncertainty. It must have been within the contemplation of Kent county council that if it went to court it might win, and that if it won there would be consequences. It had a perfect right to do that, but we have to accept the fact that the court reached a particular view and get on with it as quickly as possible. Of course, if there are specific problems in north Kent, I—or my colleagues, who may be more directly involved in some of the matters that my hon. Friend has in mind—will certainly consider them.
Mr. John Randall: The Secretary of State said that people can respond without having a public exhibition, but the majority want one, to try and find out the facts. I wrote to his Department some considerable time ago-I am still awaiting a reply, and perhaps my asking this question will help—about the perception that the process for Heathrow could have been done much better and more fairly. In the interests of fair play, therefore, would it he possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a commitment to hold another exhibition for Heathrow? I know that the London borough of Hillingdon would be able and happy to facilitate that.
Mr. Darling: I shall reflect on that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he wrote and asked for a meeting. I asked my officials to provide me with a note of which colleagues had asked for a meeting with all Ministers in the Department, not just with me. The hon. Gentleman's name did not appear in that note, but I shall check again and find out what the position is.
Derek Conway: The Secretary of State has adopted a very reasonable tone to the House, which is to be welcomed. Residents of Bexley and north Kent hope that he will be as strong an
486
environmentalist as he is polite to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the consultation documents will be reissued in the south-east of England only, or is he considering the whole package? If he is considering only the south-east of England, can something be done about the cost? The documents are very expensive, especially for residents' groups. Would the CD option be a possibility? Could some money be saved to allow more people to understand the impact of the vector flight paths?
Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I was asked a similar question. I made it clear then that the consultation will cover the whole country and not just the south-east. That is because the London airports are such an integral part of UK air transport as a whole. I am not planning to re-issue all the documents that have been issued already, but I am planning to issue a further document on the consequences of the Gatwick decision. There will, of course, be effects outside Gatwick, but the document is primarily on that decision. The new consultation period will run for four months from the publication of that document, and will allow people to make representations in respect of the entire country.
Mr. George Osborne: I welcome the decision to extend the consultation across the whole country. Developments at Manchester airport such as a third runway or a fourth terminal would further blight the lives of people whom I represent. Picking up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make a virtue of necessity and ensure that, when he makes a decision about where airport expansion will take place, that decision will be accompanied by a series of measures to protect people from excessive aircraft noise, pollution and the misery of night flights?
Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, the environmental impact of extending airport capacity will be taken into account. The consultation documents make that clear.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I welcome the extended consultation period, but the Secretary of State should understand that the vast majority of my constituents consider the consultation over the Alconbury proposal to have been inaccurate and unfair. The single public meeting that was held was moved from Peterborough to Huntingdon at only a few days' notice. Those who were able to attend found that the information was inaccurate, not least in that no night noise statistics were provided in relation to an airport that will have flights 24 hours a day. Will he undertake to hold a further public consultation meeting, at which more accurate information will be provided?
Mr. Darling: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to me setting out his concerns on that matter. I shall then reflect on how best to deal with them.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I remind the Secretary of State that the court case in question was supported by Essex county council on behalf of residents in the south of the county who would be adversely affected by the proposals on Cliffe, and on

487
behalf of residents in the north of the county who would be adversely affected by the Stansted proposals? My special plea, on behalf of my constituents in Rayleigh and of people in surrounding constituencies, is that those in the south of Essex are allowed to play a fuller part in any expanded consultation period. In that way, they would be able to put across their worries about Cliffe. As has been noted already, there is considerable feeling in the south of Essex that, so far, people there have not been consulted properly on the implications of the proposals that may affect them.
Mr. Darling: As I have said several times this afternoon, there is nothing to prevent anyone living in any part of the country from making representations about any airport, whether it is nearby or distant. The Government want to encourage that. After all, the decision in the White Paper will have profound implications for air transport over the next 30 years. That is why it is important that we hear from people as much as possible. We have to reconcile people's concerns about airport development with the undeniable fact that more and more people are flying. Moreover, much of this country's prosperity depends on our ability to move people and goods about, nationally and internationally. There are decisions that we have to face up to, and we must take them next year. However, I appreciate that hon. Members want constituents to be well informed. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, I suggest that he writes to me or to one of my ministerial colleagues. We will see what we can do to ensure that he has the information that he and his constituents need.

British Energy
1.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on British Energy.
British Energy operates eight nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom, supplies over a fifth of our electricity and employs 5,200 workers in Britain. In May this year the company announced in its preliminary results a pre-tax, pre-exceptionals, profit of £42 million in its British and north American operations, but an overall loss to its UK operations of £41 million. None the less, the company chose to maintain its dividend, paying out £48 million to shareholders.
During the summer, British Energy decided to attempt a bond issue in the United States, which was unsuccessful. On 13 August, one of the reactors at the company's Torness station was taken out of service due to unforeseen problems, reducing the company's income by £56 million. The next day company executives told investors that there were no immediate cash flow problems.
Theoughout the summer, british Energy engaged in discussions with British Nuclear Furls Limited to renegotiate the terms of its contracts. These were entirely commercial disacussions between the tow companies. At the beginning of September, British Energy realized that its financial problems were far greater than it had thought and that any conceivable ldeal with BNFL would not be enough to meet its requirements. On 4 September the company wrote to inform me of a significant worsening in the company"s financial position and about liquidity problems. It said that the board would haave to dicide, on legal advice, whether it could continue to meet its liabilities and therefore trade legally, and it asked for Gopvement help.
On the next day, I announced that the Government were entering into discussions with the company. On 9 September I announced a loan facility of £410 million to support its trading operations both in the UK and north America. On 26 September, after a further request from the company, the Government decided to extend the loan facility until 29 November and increase it to £650 million. That was designed to give the company sufficient time to clarify its full financial position and to come to a clear view on its future options.
Both the initial loan and its extension were notified to the European Commission under state aid rules, and I can tell the House that the Commission announced yesterday that it has approved the loan. I offered that loan because it was the best way of securing the safety of the nuclear power stations and the security of electricity supply to the grid and consumers. Those remain my overriding objectives.
British Energy has submitted a plan to the Government for the solvent restructuring of the company. We and our financial advisers have assessed its implications, and I can announce to the House that the Government have agreed to play their part in allowing the company to attempt solvent restructuring.
Both the company and my Department have made statements to the stock exchange today; I have placed copies of both in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

489
The company has announced that it will continue to make payments to a fund that is used to pay for the costs of decommissioning its power stations, give the fund £275million of bonds in the company and surrender to the fund 65 per cent. of its available cash each year.
The Government will underwrite those arrangements to ensure safety and environmental protection. In addition, we have recognised that if this restructuring is to work, we must contribute significantly to the company's £2.1 billion of historic nuclear fuel liabilities that are managed by BNFL and extend to 2086. The cost to the Government will average £150 million to £200 million a year for the next 10 years and will fall thereafter.
If the company does very well, surpluses from British Energy's contribution to the decommissioning funds will help meet those costs. However, I also intend to look at how the contracts are managed as part of the creation of the liabilities management authority. In addition, BNFL is today announcing that it will agree new contracts with British Energy for fuel supply and for spent fuel services in respect of future nuclear electricity generation.
If the company's proposed restructuring is to succeed, first the existing creditors will have to accept both a temporary freeze on payments and subsequently a significant write-down in the value of what they are owed. Secondly, the company will have to complete the sale of all its north American operations. Thirdly, it will have to implement the new trading strategy that it announced today. Agreement to all that must be achieved by the middle of February.
The Government are prepared to continue to fund BE's operations while the restructuring plan is agreed and implemented. The existing credit facility will be extended to 9 March, with its size remaining unchanged at £650 million. Of that existing facility, £382 million had been drawn down by yesterday. Under the proposal, the money will be progressively repaid as the company's financial situation improves. In the event of administration, we have taken security to protect the interests of the taxpayer and rank above other creditors.
I also intend shortly to bring forward legislation to enable me to carry forward the Government's part of the proposed restructuring or, if it fails, to acquire the companies or their assets. This proposal for solvent restructuring will, of course, need state aid approval by the European Commission. Once the company has reached agreement with its financial creditors, we will notify the plan to the Commission.
In September, I said that, if possible, we would look to a solvent restructuring. However, we did not rule out the possibility that the company might decide to go into administration. We have therefore prepared detailed contingency plans for administration, in discussion with all the key responsible regulatory bodies, to ensure that whatever happens, nuclear safety and security of supply will be maintained.
I stress that if British Energy were to go into administration, all its nuclear liabilities would fall to the Government. We cannot walk away from them; no responsible Government could. That is why the situation with British Energy is different from that of any other generator.
490
I take this opportunity to thank the staff at British Energy. Their skill and dedication is essential in ensuring nuclear safety. This has been an unsettling time for them, but whatever happens, nuclear power stations will continue to generate electricity and will continue to employ staff. Pension entitlements will be met. Trade suppliers will be paid. Customers' lights will stay on.
I understand that today's news will give little comfort to British Energy's financial stakeholders but they, too, must take their share of the pain if the company is to survive. The stakeholders now need to decide whether they are willing to support solvent restructuring; if they are not, the Government are fully prepared if British Energy decides that administration is the only option.
Today, the company announced that Robin Jeffrey is stepping down and that Adrian Montague will succeed him as chairman. Mr. Montague is an experienced executive who brings key business experience, from both the public and private sectors. It is clear that there have been management failings and it is right for the company to seek to strengthen its management team at this critical time.
I have set out the limits of what the Government are willing to do to support solvent restructuring. It is now up to the company, its new management and its financial stakeholders to determine the future of British Energy.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has made, a copy of which I received about half an hour ago, some time after Greenpeace helpfully e-mailed my office with details of the press release issued by British Energy in connection with the statement.
The statement at last gives Parliament a chance to question the Secretary of State about her decision, taken almost three months ago, to commit £650 million of taxpayer's money to bailing out British Energy. The statement, which was made at the last possible parliamentary moment, raises a number of questions that I shall come to later. Unfortunately, it does not address the central absurdity of the Government's policy: the imposition of the climate change levy on British Energy.
The Government claim that the climate change levy forms part of their strategy to meet our climate change commitments. As nuclear power is the main energy source that does not produce carbon dioxide emissions, the Government's policy is an absurd contradiction.
The fact is that British Energy will not enjoy fair trading conditions until the burden of the climate change levy is removed. An essential part of the solution to this crisis is for the Government to abolish the climate change levy—an arbitrary tax that does nothing to address climate change—and replace it with a single economic instrument, such as an emissions trading system or a carbon tax.
Is the Secretary of State aware that that is not only our policy, but that of the Royal Society, whose policy document was published a couple of weeks ago? Will she explain why the Government reject the arguments authoritatively put by the Royal Society? Does she recognise that that approach would improve the position of both nuclear and renewables compared with fossil fuels and that it would also make it possible to

491
guarantee that targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be met? Alas, I fear that, even if she accepts those arguments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, downgraded though he is, still remains higher in the pecking order.
I welcome the news that British Energy has been allowed to negotiate new terms with BNFL. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why that has taken so long. Has it not been clear for months, long before the bail-out was announced in early September, that that needed to happen? Will she confirm whether British Energy reached a commercial agreement with BNFL some time ago on terms that had her blessing only to have the deal blocked by the Treasury? Can she now reveal how much British Energy will save as a result of the new contract terms with BNFL?
Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's muddled approach to nuclear power is damaging confidence in the industry? On 17 November, the Minister for Energy and Construction told The Sunday Times:
"We need that supply so, come what may, nuclear generation will continue."
Just eight days later, the Secretary of State for Wales—a former Energy Minister—told The Western Mail that he wanted to shut down nuclear power stations. With such contradictions inside the Government, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State has difficulty in resolving what the Government's policy should be, but does she understand that, with one member of the Cabinet attacking nuclear power, the attempt at solvent restructuring that she has just outlined will be much harder to achieve? Will she therefore repudiate the remarks of the Secretary of State for Wales?
What additional cost to the taxpayer will arise if solvent restructuring cannot be achieved and British Energy is forced into administration? Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain that in terms of the immediate cash outgoings in the next year and the longer-term liabilities. Can she say whether the costs that she now acknowledges will arise to the Government were included in the higher Government borrowing figures announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Will the Secretary of State explain what legislation is needed to take forward the Government's part of the proposed restructuring? Does her statement mean that the Government are now considering taking British Energy back into public ownership? If so, will she explain how that will reduce British Energy's costs by a single penny or help it to become more viable in the future?
Delaying decisions about measures such as replacing the climate change levy, which would help to secure British Energy's future, will not make solvent restructuring easier to achieve. The fact that the liabilities management authority Bill is still only a draft suggests that the Government are having difficulty in acting in a timely manner on that issue as well.
The problems of British Energy were caused by a fall in the price that generators receive—a fall that has been sharpened by the new electricity trading arrangements—and British Energy is not the only generator in financial trouble. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the operation of NETA is consistent with
492
the overriding importance of security of supply? Does she consider that the regulator's remit adequately reflects the priority that must be given to maintaining the security of supply, especially when energy markets are about to experience their biggest change for a generation? Does she believe that Britain's energy needs and its climate change obligations can be met in the long term without any contribution from nuclear power?
The Secretary of State has tried to reassure us that throwing a little more taxpayers' money and allowing the company a bit more time will somehow resolve the Government's dilemma over nuclear power. The truth is that the Government's actions and omissions created problems for British Energy that would not otherwise have arisen. The bill for those actions and omissions will fall significantly on the taxpayer, regardless of whether solvent restructuring succeeds. The statement confirms that the Government's handling of this crisis has been bad for the taxpayer, and perpetuates uncertainty about the Government's energy policy.
Ms Hewitt: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the late arrival of the statement, although I am assured that it was faxed to his office at 10 minutes to 1. I would always seek to ensure that he receives copies of my statements in accordance with the normal parliamentary courtesies.
I shall now turn to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's response. In relation to the climate change levy, we made our policy absolutely clear in April 2001, when we introduced it. It is not designed to be a carbon tax but to give clear incentives to industry and commercial users to improve their energy efficiency. We will, of course, consider the whole question of whether further changes are needed to the entire policy environment, including the climate change levy, in the White Paper that we will publish in the new year. As I have said, we will not change policy, for instance, in relation to the climate change levy, simply for the sake of one company that has got itself into difficulties, however serious those difficulties are.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the negotiations that have been taking place with BNFL. Let me stress again that they are entirely a commercial matter for the two companies. Although the Government own BNFL, we are not managers of the company, we do not interfere in its day-to-day operations, and we leave the management to get on with those commercial negotiations. It is untrue to suggest, as he did, that there was a deal earlier in the summer, or that it was blocked by any part of Government. The final impact of that deal will depend on future wholesale electricity prices, since the new commercial contracts will be pegged to those market prices.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the costs of restructuring, and particularly about whether they would vary were the company to go into administration. Let me make it clear that there is no real difference in the cost to the taxpayer between the solvent restructuring that we are giving the company a chance to put into

493
place and falling into administration, should that happen. I draw his attention to what the Chancellor said yesterday in the pre-Budget report:
"The Government expects the loan facility to be managed within the planned totals for Departmental Expenditure Limits and the financial implications of any restructuring to be consistent with the forecast of the public finances and performance against the fiscal rules published in this Pre-Budget Report."
That was the position yesterday, and it remains the position today; it is not affected by this statement
The hon. Gentleman asked about legislation. I hope that we will introduce the legislation to which I referred in my statement before Christmas. As I indicated, that will allow us to fulfil our part of the restructuring, either in the event of a solvent restructuring or, if administration proves to be the company's decision, in the event of administration.
In relation to the impact on the company of NETA, let me make it clear that even before the new electricity trading arrangements were introduced, prices were falling due to liberalisation and changes in the marketplace. We introduced the new trading arrangements after extensive consultation with the entire industry, including British Energy, to remove the distortions inherent in the old pool system of fixing prices, and to put in place a much more transparent system of arriving at prices than ever existed under the pool. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that the overcapacity in the electricity market, which is now unwinding itself, and which has led to the reduction of prices following changes to the market environment, was the direct result of the pool arrangements and artificially high prices that led to the unnecessary investment that existed under his Government. He really does need to look at the history.
The hon. Gentleman referred to environmental targets, the importance of climate change and the role of nuclear power. All those issues are considered in the White Paper that will be published in the new year. We are absolutely committed to playing our part in dealing with the enormous problem of climate change. We will have much more to say about the appropriate targets on reductions, especially in carbon emissions, following Kyoto. British Energy's nuclear generators are responsible for 20 per cent. of total electricity generation and it plays a part in contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Dr. Vincent Cable: One of the few welcome aspects of this worrying statement is the tough conditions that the European Commission attaches to the loan. Perhaps we should be grateful that it is more concerned than Ministers are about the prudential use of British taxpayer's money.
How much is involved? The Government cite the figure of £650 million, but I received a fax yesterday from the Commission that said that it had approved a loan of £900 million, with additional contingencies of £275 million. Which figure is right? The Government seem to have contingent liabilities for the company greater than those provided for the Iraq war. If the figures double every three weeks, how can we have confidence in the numbers that the Government use?
494
The nuclear safety issue is paramount. Am I correct in understanding that there is no regulatory provision for the protection of nuclear safety if British Energy becomes insolvent? If that is the case, it reflects badly on the people who privatised it, but why did the Government take five years to notice the problem and prepare for it?
Why is there a fundamental problem with security of supply? National Grid states that British Energy provides 13 per cent. of capacity—not 20 per cent. as the right hon. Lady said—and there is 25 per cent. of spare capacity to meet demand. The industry's regulator, Mr. McCarthy, who presumably knows something about the industry that he regulates, says that the problems of British Energy pose no threat to security of supply, either in whole or in the event of some of its older reactors ceasing production. If the Government are at such odds with their regulator, why is he still in his job?
On competition, the Government have arranged a rescue operation for a failed and badly managed company and its shareholders. What answer does the Minister give to the workers and shareholders of other companies in the energy industry, such as renewable power generators and AES Drax, in which people are losing their livelihood and money as a result of competition with the enterprise that the Government are rescuing?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman refers to the tough conditions supposedly imposed by the European Commission. He takes that phrase from the title of its press release issued yesterday. Had he read on, he would have found that we imposed the "tough conditions" as a condition of making the loan in the first place. In other words, the loan facility that we made available was not handed over to the company. It was put into a separate account and every bill or guarantee met from the facility is first checked and cleared by our accountancy advisers. The European Commission welcomed the fact that we had put in place such tough controls.
So far, thanks to the extremely tough and prudent management of the facility that we put in place, only about 60 per cent. of the total facility has been used, so we do not propose to increase it. However, we have discussed with the European Commission the maximum amount that may be required for the six-month period for which rescue aid has been approved. That is why the Commission has approved a figure higher than the £650 million that we already have in place; in other words, the Commission's approval relates to the maximum that may be required but our objective is to pay only the minimum. We will continue to do everything necessary to achieve that through the tough management of the account.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the safety and regulatory conditions would apply if the company decided to put itself into administration. We have spent a large part of recent weeks in discussions with the various regulators to ensure that even if the company decides that it needs to go into administration, health and safety, including nuclear safety, will be properly secured. One of the main reasons why we were not prepared, many weeks ago, to risk letting the company fall into unplanned administration is that, at that time, the question of health and safety, among others, was not clear.

495
The hon. Gentleman also asked about security of supply. The difference between the figures of 13 per cent. and 20 per cent. is simply a matter of the base that one uses—whether one measures production against capacity or against total generation. As a result of the significant mothballing of plant that has taken place over the past year, particularly in recent months, the capacity margin, although certainly adequate to ensure security of supply throughout the winter, is significantly lower than it has been.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have an important Bill to discuss this afternoon and many hon. Members want to take part in that debate. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that she will shortly introduce legislation, so we will have an early opportunity to return to this subject. I do not intend, therefore, to run this on much beyond 2.40 pm. I hope that I may have the co-operation of the House in that respect, and I ask for short questions and short answers.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her robust and intelligently constructed position, which puts the onus for the financial recovery and solvency of British Energy firmly on the company itself. She has created a position in which, over the next few months, we can debate the implications of NETA and its current operation—it is not an entirely satisfactory replacement for the pool, as she no doubt realises—and other aspects of energy policy, notably the security and diversity of supply that we seek. It is entirely to her credit that she has created t hat opportunity for us, and I hope that all parties in the House will engage constructively in a debate that is in the national interest.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. On NETA, perhaps it will help if I stress that we are already supporting changes to its operation, in particular to assist smaller generators and to improve the way in which the balancing mechanism works. He is right to say that we will need to return to that and many other issues in the White Paper.
Mr. Michael Jack: The manufacturers of British Energy's fuels, namely, the workers in my constituency at Salwick, will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the help that she has given the company. However, will she confirm that the revised arrangements with BNFL will not harm that company's profitability? Will she also explain to the House how the revised arrangements will affect the cost of generation of each kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy from British Energy? Will the company thereafter trade profitably within the constraints of NETA?
Ms Hewitt: The new contracts that British Energy is putting in place with BNFL are part of a strategy to reduce its costs and establish new longer-term contracts with the energy suppliers to protect itself against possible further downward movements in prices. As for BNFL's profitability, I elaborated on that matter last year in a statement on the creation of the liabilities management authority.
Anne Picking: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Torness is in my constituency and her remarks about the staff, their commitment, hard work and loyalty were welcome. I visited the station on numerous occasions when both reactors were down and everybody, including the station master, the staff and unions, was working together. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to nuclear power generation and a balanced energy policy.
Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend. I thank her constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for their continuing commitment to the safe and effective operation of nuclear power.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Before the Secretary of State introduces a policy for British Energy, she needs a policy for nuclear power. Will she comment on the fact that over the next 20 years, all Britain's nuclear power stations except one will be decommissioned? Even on the most optimistic projections for alternative energy, emissions of carbon dioxide will therefore rise, whereas the Government are committed to reductions. Why, after more than five years in office, have the Government still not got to grips with that? Why have they not practised joined-up government and brought their energy policy into line with their environmental commitments, which other sections of the Government are pleased to boast about?
Ms Hewitt: We are taking tough action to try to improve energy efficiency and achieve an increase in renewables generating capacity of 10 per cent. by 2010. The broader issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, including the role of nuclear power and the much broader energy framework needed to achieve continuing reductions in CO2. are matters for the White Paper.
Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of the measures that she announced in her package prejudices security of supply, which will be considered in the White Paper? Will she go further and give a commitment to meet coalfield Members and people from coalfield communities to explain how a package of £650 million and an ongoing commitment of £150 million to £200 million a year to nuclear energy can be set against the limited aid given to coalfield communities?
Ms Hewitt: I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues from the coalfield communities. I am happy to confirm that, far from jeopardising security of supply, my statement and all my actions have been designed to secure it.
My hon. Friend asked about support for the coal industry and coalfield communities. We have invested £150 million since 1997 in operating aid to coal companies, particularly through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have invested hundreds of millions of pounds more in helping people in the coalfield communities, including the one represented by my hon. Friend, to cope with the costs of the brutal restructuring of the mining industry under a previous Conservative Government.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given that both Hinkley A and B are in my constituency—one owned by BNFL, the other by British Energy—is the Minister happy that money being put aside for the decommissioning of one at the moment and another in a decade's time is sufficient to sort out the entire Hinkley Point area, which, the House will appreciate, is extremely important to my constituency?
Ms Hewitt: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I confirm not only that we are strengthening arrangements for the nuclear decommissioning and nuclear liabilities fund in the steps that I announced today but that the Government, as always, stand as the guarantor of last resort for those nuclear liabilities.
Mr. John Grogan: My right hon. Friend referred to the aid that the Government have given the coal industry in the past. To enhance her reputation for even-handedness and fairness, will she look at the modest amount that the coal industry is making compared with the nuclear industry—nothing like £150 million to £200 million a year—and agree to lift the cap on operating aid to UK Coal?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is aware that the operating aid scheme has come to an end, although we extended it until the end of this year in order to deal with one particular problem. We succeeded earlier this year in securing, within the new European aid framework, provision for investment aid to that industry and we are now consulting on the nature of that investment aid scheme.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does not the abject failure of British Energy spell the beginning of the end of nuclear power in this country and certainly rule out new build for the future, as announced by the Secretary of State for Wales? Will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity to put on the record what the excess generating capacity is at present and what advice she has received from the regulator? Does she accept that this is a wake-up call to her Department to get moving on energy efficiency and renewables?
Ms Hewitt: No statement has been made about the future of nuclear electricity beyond what I have said in relation to both British Energy and BNFL. For the longer term, those are matters that we will consider in the energy White Paper, which, as I have said several times today, will be published in the new year. Of course we need to do more on energy efficiency and on renewables. We are already doing a great deal—with the hon. Gentleman's support, I hope—and we shall have more to say on the subject in the White Paper.
David Hamilton: With regard to the security of energy supply, may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a concern shared by many miners throughout the country that one company, UK Coal, could change the position within the United Kingdom? It is imperative that a single company should not be allowed to determine the policy of this country.
Ms Hewitt: As I understand the position, in the eventuality that my hon. Friend describes, the coal
498
resources would revert to the Coal Authority. The broader issue of the place of coal in securing a diverse and safe electricity supply will be considered in the White Paper.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The answer that the Secretary of State gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) and to the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) is not good enough. The fundamental reason for the insolvency of British Energy is that the market price of electricity, low as it is and welcome as that is, is lower than the production cost of nuclear energy. In making a commitment of public money, the right hon. Lady must have a policy on future nuclear build. What is that policy? If there are to be no new nuclear power stations, how does that fit in with the Government's policy of reducing CO2, emissions?
Ms Hewitt: The question of new nuclear build has nothing whatever to do with the issue of British Energy and how it will manage its responsibility for existing nuclear stations. It seems to me that the causes of British Energy's problems are many, but a company that has constantly changed its strategy, constantly sought—but failed—to secure alliances and mergers with supply companies, gone through three chief executives in about five years and lost a deputy chairman earlier this year is a company in which there have been very serious management failings. Its problems cannot be blamed on the market environment, particularly when British Energy itself, publicly and privately, welcomed the introduction of those market arrangements.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for her support for British Energy. She may well know that its national headquarters are based in Barnwood in my constituency. Does she have a message for the people of that ward who voted Liberal Democrat when the Liberal Democrats gained the seat in May this year, bearing in mind that the Liberal Democrats would take away the £650 million loan and jeopardise more than 1,000 jobs in that ward?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. The Liberal Democrats in Gloucester told the voters of Barnwood in my hon. Friend's constituency that they oppose the policy of immediate administration that was proposed today by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these matters. As ever, what we are seeing from the Liberal Democrats is opportunism and confusion combined.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State confirm—I admit that I have made my calculations while we have been sitting here—that a minimum of two thirds of the £2.1 billion discounted cost of the historic waste liabilities of British Energy will be transferred to the taxpayer? Will she clarify the relationship with the liabilities management authority, which will get from BNFL liabilities, a fund and the management of assets? What does she propose to transfer to the LMA from British Energy?
Ms Hewitt: As I said, we anticipate that the costs of the historic nuclear liabilities for British Energy will

499
average between £150 million and £200 million a year for the next 10 years, although if the situation improves British Energy will be expected to put more into the nuclear liabilities fund. We are making good progress on the legislation and practical arrangements necessary for the establishment of the liabilities management authority. We will consider whether it would be appropriate for British Energy's historic liabilities to be managed through the LMA; we have not yet made a decision about that.
Rob Marris: I applaud the Government's attempts to sort out this mess. I note that they are underwriting a rescue package, that the creditors are not going to be paid in full and that they will assume all nuclear liabilities if the company goes into administration.
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many nuclear reactors have been built around the world in the past 25 years without direct or indirect subsidy for building, operating or decommissioning costs?
Ms Hewitt: I do not have that figure, but I know that several countries are now commissioning new nuclear power stations in order to meet their judgment of how best to achieve their carbon reduction targets.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Given the management failings that my right hon. Friend mentioned, I welcome the fact that there are to be changes at the top of the company. Will she assure us, however, that an example will not be set whereby the people responsible for presiding over massive losses in their business walk away with massive payouts as compensation for their troubles? Will she assure us that there will be no rewards for failure on this occasion?
Ms Hewitt: I have made my views about big rewards for big corporate failures very clear on several occasions. In this situation, there are certain contractual requirements, but I would be very concerned about large remuneration payments to the former chairman. I have no doubt that he we will want to face up to his responsibility for the position in which the company
500
finds itself. Large payments to the former chairman or anyone else involved would send a very damaging signal when all the other stakeholders face either considerable uncertainty, as in the case of employees, or are directly bearing a share in the pain. I hope that the former chairman will take the same view as me, which is that he should play his part in sharing that pain.
Glenda Jackson: Despite my right hon. Friend's previous replies, if British Energy is taken into administration that surely must have an impact on the Government's consideration of what part nuclear energy will play in providing sustainable energy in the future. Even if that does not mean excluding nuclear energy completely, a reduction in its use is something that many of my constituents would welcome.
Ms Hewitt: The problems that we are dealing with today relate to one company. They do not arise specifically from the nature of nuclear power, whose future role will be considered in the White Paper. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be as interested as everybody else to see it in the new year.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 107 and 108 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That—

(1) the matter of the Government's Pre-Budget Report as it relates to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 5th December at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at Two o'clock to consider the Government's Pre-Budget Report as it relates to Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and

(3) at the meeting—

(a) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at Four o'clock; and

(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 108(5) (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).— [Mr. Caplin]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. There is also a 10-minute limit on Back-Benchers' speeches.
  2.39 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Today's older people are the generation who created our great public services. Labour Members believe that they, above all others, deserve to get the best from them. Indeed, the mark of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its most senior citizens. The Bill is, therefore, first and foremost about promoting the well-being and independence of older people. It is about ensuring dignity and security in old age.
  Labour Members are proud of the progress that we have already made. The average pensioner household is £840 a year better off today than in 1997. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, there is more help to come for Britain's pensioners.
  Eye tests are again free for pensioners; that also applies to nursing care. For the first time, almost 150,000 women over 65 have been invited for breast screening. In the next four years, more than 1 million more will be screened.
  It is for others in the House to explain their opposition to reductions in VAT on heating, extra winter fuel payments and free TV licences. More than 11 million pensioners have been helped by those measures, which the Labour Government introduced.
  Ours is an ageing society. We should not fear but celebrate that. However, it poses formidable challenges for our key public services in providing better, faster care to higher standards for older people. It means providing services that promote what older people say they want: independence not dependence, and breaking down the Berlin wall between health and social care. Older people need one care system, not two competing systems.
  When I visit health and social care services around the country. I am always impressed by the power of partnership. When the services work well together, older people receive first-class care; when they do not, older people suffer.
  Delayed discharge from hospital occurs when partnerships do not work. The Bill is designed to tackle that problem. On any single day in England, approximately 5,000 people—mainly older people—are trapped in a hospital bed when they are fit to be cared for at home. Consequently, everyone loses.
  For patients who are ready and able to leave, hospital is not the right place. The longer that they are forced to stay, the greater the risk of losing their independence and confidence. For the patient's family and carers,
  502
  normal living is suspended, doubt replaces certainty and lives are put on hold. Hospitals incur unnecessary costs from looking after patients who are not their responsibility, and the beds that they need are lost. Other patients who are waiting for the beds pay in longer waiting times for treatment and, in the worst cases, in cancelled operations.
  That vicious cycle has existed for too long and we must find a way to break it. Of course, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the problem disappear. In the past few years, we have tried to introduce policies to deal with it. The Bill builds on what we have done so far.
  We have introduced national standards for the first time and a national system of inspection to improve the way in which services work together for the benefit of older people. There was a time when there were no national standards and a local lottery in care. No one who is serious about ensuring equity in social care wants to go back to those days.
  We have provided extra investment for the health service and social services. Many of my hon. Friends have long argued that social services have too often been the health service's poor relation. The evidence is on their side. I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) nods his head. In the last five years of Conservative government—I believe that the hon. Gentleman was a Health Minister then—spending on social services increased by only 0.1 per cent. a year in real terms. Today, it is growing by more than 3 per cent. From next April, the rate of growth will double to an average of 6 per cent. a year for the next three years.
  Some people, even some of my hon. Friends, will say that that investment is not enough. Perhaps I can do more to help social services. I want to say a little more about that shortly.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: In a moment. I shall not take lectures from the Conservative party about how social services cannot afford the Bill's provisions. In government, the Conservative party failed to make the necessary investment, and failed to commit the resources that we are providing. In opposition, it fails to agree to match the extra resources that we are committing for the future. Its record on social services is compound failure: the failures of the present are piled on those of the past. The Conservative party offers only failure for the future. Speaking of that, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  Mr. Waterson: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of funding, is he aware that his proposals would mean a fine of £2.5 million, on current figures, for East Sussex, equating to 240 residential or nursing placements or 800 home care packages?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman has in front of him, but whether it is true is an entirely different matter. As I shall say in a moment, there are growing resources for social services. Indeed, I made a statement to the House in July this year, in which I set out an earmarked package of measures specifically

  503
  to build capacity in elderly care services. I do not believe for a moment that local government or social services simply will not spend that money. They want to spend it; they are the people who have been arguing for it. We have listened to their argument, and conceded it. We have provided extra resources for social services, and we now expect that they will use them to build up the necessary capacity.
  That brings me to my third point, the question of building up extra capacity across the care system. In the NHS, for the first time in 30 years, the number of beds in hospitals is rising, not falling. In the community, while it is true that the number of care home beds has fallen, the quantity of care provided in other settings has risen. Our latest estimates are that the number of people helped by intermediate care services has risen by 126,000 in the last couple of years, and that 43,000 more older people receive intensive support at home today than in 1997. As I told the House in July, we will build up capacity further still in the next few years, with a £1 billion package of measures for elderly care services. These resources will allow local councils to pay higher fees to care homes, if that is what is needed to stabilise their local care home market. Although care homes are a good option for some older people, they are not—and must not become—the be all and end all of elderly care services in our country. A broader spectrum of services is needed for older people, to widen choice and to promote independence.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Secretary of State aware of the independent research by Exeter university, which shows that, in Devon, the 100-plus intermediate care beds allow discharge to take place approximately seven days earlier than would normally be the case, thus saving the NHS about £3 million? Devon county council is concerned, however, that, having achieved that—no doubt, with support from the Secretary of State—it will now be penalised by £1.5 million as a result of having provided that care.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is interesting because, all too often, we hear from Conservative Front Benchers—I cannot speak for Conservative Back Benchers; I cannot speak for Front Benchers, come to that—that extra resources in public services do not produce results. But they do, and the hon. Lady is right: intermediate care is working. We have provided extra resources, and, as a consequence, capacity is being built up. We are also providing further extra resources for the next few years. If I know local government and social services at all, I know what they want to do—not least from my discussions with directors and members of local authorities. They want to spend more on social services provision. We have given them the opportunity to do that over the next few years, and we will do so further into the future, too.
  Mr. Simon Burns: So as not to confuse the House, on the question of help for the elderly outside the residential care setting, will the Secretary of State confirm the answer given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), on Monday that the number of households receiving domiciliary care has fallen since September 1997 by 97,900?
  Mr. Milburn: What the hon. Gentleman is alluding to is simply the number of households receiving some form of home care. However, that is not the only category of people who receive help. Indeed, the number of older people helped, through the public purse, to live at home has increased, not decreased—I can give the hon. Gentleman the latest figures—from 638,000 to 661,000, so his allegation is simply not true.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will my right hon. Friend clear up a tremendous confusion in my local authority in Durham? At Question Time recently, he promised to investigate whether the money given to deal with bed blocking in Durham has been used for that purpose. Durham county council's social services department tells me that it has not received the money from the primary care trust; the PCT says that it has. I am not sure how many beds were unblocked by the money that was supposedly given—£1.8 million. He said that he would come back to me, but he has not. Can he clear this up?
  Mr. Milburn: I am amazed that confusion is reigning in Durham. That sounds a very unlikely state of affairs. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility for social services and community care, is looking into the matter. Two things are necessary. First, the local community bodies concerned—PCTs, social services and the acute hospitals—must come together and agree a course of action. That has not always happened. Secondly, if we can be helpful nationally, we will be. If our investigation or our involvement can help, we will be glad to provide such help.
  The situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) is the nub of the problem. When partnership works, it is great; when it does not work, it is a disaster. The problem is that it relies purely on voluntary endeavour. If relationships are good, they are good; if they are bad, they are bad. We do not have an incentive in the system that allows each part of the partnership—health services on the one hand and social services on the other—to accept their responsibilities. That, fundamentally, is what the Bill is about.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State please answer my question simply? If relationships are to improve under the Bill, why are three of the 10 clauses about dispute resolution?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman knows fine well why that is so. If the world were a perfect place and if partnership were happening everywhere, there would be no need for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham to stand up and complain, no need for Opposition Members to stand up and complain about the same issue and no need for the Bill to be introduced. Partnership is a very cosy idea and, like every Member, I support it, but to make it work everybody has to accept their responsibilities. Sadly, sometimes they do not do so, which is why legislation is necessary.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: When I met consultants at Pinderfields hospital in my constituency over the summer, they told me that about a third of the

  505
  hospital's beds were occupied by people who did not need to be in them. Some were delayed discharges, but others had been admitted inappropriately by GPs. Does my right hon. Friend intend to extend the principles behind the Bill to fining others who are involved in health care? Is my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who is a GP, likely to be fined for wrongly admitting his patients to the local hospital?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I do not think that that is needed, partly because there are incentives in the system in respect of that. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. It is perfectly self-evident that one problem that bedevils health and social services is the fact that people are all too often in the wrong part of the system at the wrong time. We are putting the incentives in place to correct the deficit in the NHS that he rightly describes so that in future—not before too long, I hope—I shall be in a position to give PCTs budgets for the longer term rather than just a year. They will have discretion over how to spend that money, whether on primary care, community care or hospital-based care.
  One thing is absolutely certain, and my hon. Friend has argued this over many years: the problems for hospitals will not be resolved purely in hospitals. This country, and elderly people more than anyone else, require a broad spectrum of services—services in hospital, in the community and in primary care and, crucially, social care services.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. May I clarify the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)? GPs sometimes admit patients inappropriately purely because they cannot get the care packages in the home that they would like and which would keep people in their home. Improving social services care would make that a thing of the past.
  Mr. Milburn: I agree. I was coming to that. The Opposition, however, all too often seem fixated with the idea that the only form of care that counts is either hospital care or care in a care home. Care in homes is important, giving frail and disabled older people in particular the opportunities that they need; but there should be a broader spectrum of care choice, not just for those older people but for general practitioners and others working in the community who want to ensure that patients are placed appropriately.
  Our extra investment in social services over the next few years will help to finance a 50 per cent. increase on the 1997 total in the number of extra care housing places, or very sheltered accommodation. A further 70,000 older people will receive rehabilitation services each year to prevent them from having to go to hospital unnecessarily in the first place, and to help them leave hospital speedily when it is safe for them to do so. The Bill, moreover, will make those and all intermediate care provision—whether provided by the health service or by social services—free to the user.
  More older people will be able to choose to live at home. In the past, too many have faced a choice between going into a care home and struggling on in their own
  506
  homes. As a result of our investment, by 2005 twice as many older people will receive the intensive help they need in order to live at home as received it in 1995.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: When he next visits Lancaster, would my right hon. Friend care to join me in visiting the Beck View extra sheltered housing project? He would see a tremendous example of partnership between Lancashire county council's social services department and Lancaster city council. Exactly the sort of work he has described is being done, enabling older people to remain in their homes for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Milburn: If I visit Lancaster—of which, as my hon. Friend knows, I am extremely fond—I will certainly do as he suggests. Recently, when I was in another great city—Leeds—I saw a superb example of extra care housing. If I remember rightly, it was supported by a local authority, a housing association and the national health service. As my hon. Friend suggests, such things can happen and are happening. What we need to do is build up the capacity, and Opposition Members must recognise that that can be done only if the necessary resources are committed to social services—which is precisely what we are going to do.
  Mr. David Lepper: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the support for carers that exists throughout the House. In view of what he said about ensuring the availability of a range of care options, will he, during the Bill's passage, return to the need to ensure that the current guidance on consulting and providing information for carers about hospital discharge is given the force of law? Will he also consider the provision of free care services for carers when they are needed as part of the care package relating to discharge?
  Mr. Milburn: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the second point. As for the first, we will want to issue guidance to those in all parts of the care system, but particularly to those in hospitals, about how discharge procedures should work. An important part of that is ensuring that not just patients but their families and carers are involved from the outset. Carers do a fantastic job, and the Government have no intention of trying to bypass their role. Indeed, we want to enhance it.
  Ms Joan Walley: May I refer my right hon. Friend to another great city, Stoke-on-Trent? How does he intend to secure the necessary accountability in the efforts to produce joint strategies for integrated care for elderly people?
  The Edwards report on services in Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire resulted in the transfer of £300,000 from the NHS to social services. However, the money was not actually spent on the services that it was originally provided for. What measures will he introduce in respect of accountability, because we need to ensure that money intended for a specific purpose is used just for that purpose?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Bill provides a partial answer, and

  507
  in a moment I shall discuss the question of ensuring that responsibilities are also matched by resource responsibility. However, I can assure her that during this Session, we will introduce further legislation to ensure a better audit trail—in the health service and in social services—of where public money is being spent. We aim to strengthen the inspectorates on the health and the social care sides of the fence, and we intend to impose a legal obligation on both new inspectorates to work together. Otherwise, not only do elderly and vulnerable patients fall through the gap in the middle; sadly, public money sometimes does as well.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), but then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Secretary of State has already acknowledged the concern of some of his hon. Friends that the additional resources that he has announced are not adequate. Given that the Government's inquiry into health service funding—the Wanless report—made a case for extra investment, and given that the report time and again flagged up the fact that no equivalent work was being done in social services, is it not time for a Wanless inquiry into social care, so that we can be certain that the additional resources are sufficient to deliver on this Government's commitments?
  Mr. Milburn: We have made our decisions on social services for the foreseeable future—for the next three years—and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, until very recently social services faced an annual cycle of budgets, because they had no real idea what they were getting. That is changing, and we must maintain that change and provide as much certainty and stability as possible in social services funding. I shall say something more on the matter in a moment, but we will continue to assess what social services actually need to fulfil their obligations. That is the right thing to do, and in particular we want to ensure that they have the resources to build up services in the community and at home.
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, people are charged for community equipment such as handrails, walking frames or bath seats. This equipment can make the difference between an older person's becoming dependent, or remaining independent in their own home. The Bill's provisions will remove these charges altogether. Ring-fenced funding for up to 500,000 extra pieces of community equipment will be provided to an estimated 250,000 additional older people, and for the first time they will be provided free of charge.
  The resources are therefore in place to establish capacity in the communities where it is needed by older people. Extra support in the community will, in turn, help to relieve pressure on hospitals. However, resources alone are insufficient to crack the problem of delayed discharge from hospital: reforms are needed alongside resources. Of course, some reforms are already beginning to bite. The first care trusts are now in place, and there are more to come. Under health legislation flexibilities, more than 180 local partnerships
  508
  are now delivering services worth more than £2 billion a year. Finally, a single process for assessing older people's health and social care needs is being put in place.
  Mr. Paul Truswell: Given the huge welcome for the long-overdue additional resources that have been spelt out, and given that further resources are planned, why has my right hon. Friend taken it upon himself to introduce this punitive legislation before thoroughly evaluating the use and impact of that money?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not think that the legislation is at all punitive.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is punitive.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless have an opportunity to make his speech in a moment or two, but it would be helpful if he would not shout at me during mine. The legislation is not punitive: it is about ensuring that the needs of the older person, rather than of any one part of the care system, always come first.
  The Conservative party is in severe danger of becoming the party of the producer, and I know that it would not want to do that. It always used to pride itself on being the party of the consumer, but perhaps that has gone, too, along with its tradition of economic competence—or indeed being the party of the vulnerable.
  Partnership is the key to delivery, but it works only when both health and social services are clear about their respective responsibilities. It is about giving as well as taking, and about being clear that what comes first is not the needs of any one service but those of every individual user of the service. When older people get trapped in hospital, that is a failure in partnership working.
  Patients can be delayed for many reasons. In too many cases, they are delayed in hospital because social services departments are not fulfilling their responsibility to provide care in the community. Almost 1,000 older people are trapped in hospital simply because they are waiting for their needs to be assessed and their future care planned. Under the current system, for as long as elderly people remain in hospital, they do so at the cost of the national health service. There is no incentive for local government to tackle the problem. Indeed, there is every incentive to leave them stuck there. The Bill is not about imposing wholly new responsibilities on social services departments but about ensuring that they fulfil their existing ones.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: The Brighton and Hove authority has done exactly what my right hon. Friend is asking: it has entered into close partnership working with the local health bodies, and a care trust is emerging, but despite its best efforts there is still a serious problem of bed blocking, which is outside its control. Under the Bill, it is quite possible that the extra resources that the social services department has

  509
  been given—thank you very much—could be used to pay punitive fines because of bed blocking that is outside its control.
  Mr. Milburn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, let me say to the House that interventions are getting longer and longer, and hon. Members should really learn the art of the concise intervention, especially when they are taking time out of the time that they might hope to have later, if they catch my eye.
  Mr. Milburn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will take that as a hint to get on with it.
  On my hon. Friend's question, that is precisely why we are making resources available to social services. Of course, there is a choice. We are giving £1 billion of extra cash, largely earmarked for elderly care services, and social services departments have a choice—although earmarking restricts their discretion to some extent, I suppose—about whether to use those extra resources to build up capacity, which is what they tell us they want to do, and is indeed the reason why we agreed to give them the extra money, or whether they want to transfer resources to the health service. Our understanding is that they want to build up services in the community, and they now have an opportunity to do just that. I perfectly understand that, in the days when budgets were rising by 0.1 per cent. a year in real terms, that was not possible, but we are now moving into an era in which resources will be rising by 6 per cent. a year in real terms, not only for one or two years but for three whole years.
  It is not as though social services departments have not known that this measure was coming. Indeed, there are already extra resources in place. The day after the Budget in April, I stood here and announced precisely that this measure was coming. In October, we provided £300 million through the building capacity grant, so that social services could start the process of building up services in the community. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall return to it later.
  In all fairness, the costs of care should surely fall where they belong. Under the new system proposed in the Bill, when patients are ready and able to leave hospital but care is not provided for them in the community when it should be, the costs will indeed pass to social services, but there is also a requirement on the national health service to play its part in the discharge process by giving advance notice to social services that a patient may need community care on leaving hospital.
  Under the Bill, where social services do not fulfil their responsibilities, they will have to meet the costs that the hospital incurs in providing care for patients whose discharge has been needlessly delayed. Where similar approaches have been used in other countries, they have worked. Opposition Members are always saying that we should learn from those experiences, and we are trying to do just that. The precise details of the scheme in Sweden are not the same as what we propose here—not least because the structure of health and social care is rather different—but the number of hospital beds occupied by delayed patients was halved in that country, and the average wait for discharge was reduced to just three days.
  510
  Some have objected that the Bill will create a perverse incentive for hospitals to discharge patients too early, only for them to have to be readmitted. I understand those concerns, and that is why we have put in place the necessary safeguards to prevent that happening. In future, hospitals will be rated—and therefore rewarded—according to how well they do in reducing emergency readmission rates. What is more, under the new system that we are introducing to pay hospitals for what they do, they will not receive funding for patients who, within a certain period, are readmitted to hospital with the same complaint or a complication of it. Again, the incentive will be on the hospital to discharge appropriately, not inappropriately.
  The fundamental objection to the Bill, however, has been that it is all stick and no carrot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) noted. The criticism is that social services are being given a new responsibility without adequate resources. Let me address that in two ways. First, this is not a new responsibility: it exists today. The system simply does not ensure that costs fall where responsibilities lie. Secondly, the Budget provides substantial extra resources for social services, and the means to increase capacity in community services. Incidentally, we took account of any likely costs to social services of this measure in making those resources available.
  However, I have considered this point carefully and listened to the representations that have been made today, and on previous occasions, by some Labour Members and by local authorities and local government organisations. The maximum cost that social services would face in payments to hospitals under the Bill would be about £100 million in any one year. That estimate presumes three things.
  The first is that councils make no progress whatever beyond the targets that they themselves have already set to reduce the level of delayed discharges from hospitals. Secondly, the £100 million estimate pre-supposes that social services do not use the 6 per cent. annual increase in resources to put in place new services to help reduce delayed discharges from hospitals still further. Finally, the estimate presumes that none of the £1 billion—most of which is earmarked for elderly care services, as I said earlier—gets spent on those very services. I do not believe for a moment that that is what local authorities will do—indeed, they will not be able to do that, as so much of the money is earmarked. Therefore, I do not believe either that social services will have to pay £100 million to the health service.
  None the less, I have decided, for each of the next three years, to transfer an extra £100 million, on top of the resources already made available, from the NHS budget to social services for each full year in which the scheme operates. I am doing so in order to provide a positive incentive to ensure that the regime is not punitive and to make the system work. This extra £100 million will now enable individual councils to gain rather than lose from the system—provided, of course, that they make available the community services needed to reduce delayed discharges from hospitals. Hospitals can gain too. As social services reduce the pressures on hospitals, their costs will fall.
  My intention is not, and never has been, to punish local government but to pursue a real and sustained reduction in delayed discharge from hospital. Frankly,

  511
  there can now be no excuse for social services not to fulfil their responsibilities to older people. I have tried, therefore, to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friends and others during the course of the debate.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I appreciate the purpose of the Bill, particularly the point about giving the social services extra funding to ensure that they are not punished. However, I have been listening carefully and there seems to be one omission from the Bill—the older people themselves. It seems that they are being treated rather instrumentally. Will my hon. Friend comment on what consultation might be available to older people or their families, or advocacy services if they are not capable?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The philosophy at the heart of the Bill is straightforward. What counts is the user of the service, not health services or social services. They exist for a purpose—to serve the public and, in this case, to serve older people. For a variety of reasons—some to do with resources, some to do with historical capacity, some to do with the structural deficit in our health and social care system—too often older people are let down. That is simply not good enough.
  The Bill is about doing what older people want. Older people always say that they want to be independent, not dependent. They want to live in their own home; they do not want to be in a care home, by and large, or in hospitals. Hospitals are not places where people choose to go—they want to get in as quickly as possible and to get out as quickly as possible. The philosophy of the Bill is about ensuring that the older person's needs are fully taken into account. As I said earlier, it is important that the views of individual older people and those of their carers and families are fully taken into account in the discharge process, and that is what we will do.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way and then I really must wind up.
  Mr. Lansley: If the Secretary of State were to act on what he said in response to the previous intervention, would the Bill reflect that patients exercising their choice under the choice directive would not lead to fines on social services? What guarantee will he give that the exercise of patient choice will not lead to costs and fines for social services?
  Mr. Milburn: There are two issues about the exercise of choice. The hon. Gentleman talks about the direction on choice. There are two groups of people. Self-funders effectively pay for their own care and are not the responsibility of social services. However, social services have an obligation towards people who are their responsibility. There is a direction on choice, of course, and people should be able to exercise choice. However, the direction on choice has never, under the previous Conservative Administration or ours, been about older people being allowed needlessly to occupy hospital beds when they are ready, willing and able to go home. There are important issues surrounding the direction of
  512
  choice, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but what most people want is simple. They want to get in and out of hospital as quickly as possible.
  I have today provided further resources to local government because we have been told that the problem is resources. I have provided the extra resources; we have assessed the cost of the fines. I have covered the cost of the so-called fines and frankly, there can now be no further excuses for social services not to fulfil their responsibilities.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend is being very generous to local authorities, but he has not provided any extra money. He has actually taken £100 million out of the NHS, and that is a worry to me.
  Mr. Milburn: That is true. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not intruding on private grief. I have transferred £100 million from the national health service to social services. It will help the national health service do its job because if we do not build up social services, NHS hospitals will not be able to do their job. I realise that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is hurriedly rewriting his speech as a consequence of my announcement, but it is no use for him to complain about transfer of resources—he is against resources. He is against resources going into the health service. He is against resources going into social services.
  For the sake of people in hospital who need to come out and for the sake of people who need to be in hospital, we must address delayed discharges once and for all. The Bill is about making the system work for older people who are needlessly stuck in hospital. It is about putting older people first. It is about helping them to get the right care, in the right place, at the right time. For the first time, the Bill introduces a positive incentive to ensure that the resources of health and social services are directly linked to the responsibilities that they share. It will help to ensure that resources provided for social services are actually spent on social services. The Bill is fair to the national health service, it is fair to local government and, above all, it is fair to older people. I commend it to the House.
  3.21 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill because it would be divisive and undermine successful working partnerships between the NHS and Social Services Departments; imposes a negative fining system on local authorities rather than promoting positive policies to tackle the problems facing community care; fails to redress the loss of capacity due to over 60,000 beds being closed down in residential care since 1997 and the closure of over 2,000 care homes; fails to recognise that the number of households receiving domiciliary care has fallen by almost 100,000 households; and unfairly penalises local authorities without improving the system of discharging patients from hospital."
  As ever, whether it be the shambles of the fire dispute, the mishandling of the economy or the Government's increasing failure to deal with the woes of the national health service, their approach is exactly the same: to ignore criticism and to pass the buck. However, the problem with which the Bill deals is entirely of the making of the Secretary of State for Health and his Ministers.

  513
  For the past few years, we have been warning of the inevitable consequences of Government policy, and our predictions, unlike those of the Chancellor, turned out to be right. In April 2002, there were an estimated 511,300 places in residential settings for the long-stay care of elderly and physically disabled people across all sectors in the United Kingdom. That is a drop of more than 60,000 places since Labour came to office.
  By April 2002, capacity in all those sectors had decreased by 64,300 from the 1996 peak—a decrease of 11 per cent. If we correct those figures to take account of population change, the decrease is even greater: about 20 per cent. from the peak. Most frightening of all, despite all that Conservative Members and even some Labour Back-Benchers have said, 14,000 places were lost last year—the biggest single fall since Labour came to power.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the quality of those residential places? Why should elderly people have to opt for residential care rather than for the wide range of options that will keep them in their homes and support them in the community?
  Dr. Fox: Indeed. The drop in the number of care home places would not be so worrying were it not for the drop in the provision of domiciliary care. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has pointed out, almost 100,000 fewer households have been supplied with domiciliary care since the Government came to office.
  What is the effect of all that on the NHS itself? First, as a result of delayed discharges the number of cancelled operations has risen by almost a third since 2000. The Government's own figures show that 77,800 operations were cancelled in 2001, compared with 50,000 in the year they came to power.
  Secondly, the number of emergency readmissions has increased as patients are discharged early to try to meet the Government's targets. Over the past year, more than 500,000 patients had to be readmitted; in 10 health authorities the increase in readmissions was more than 10 per cent.
  Some of the Government's answers and the Secretary of State's response to the problem are ludicrous. Hospitals will not be funded if patients are readmitted, so presumably if a patient with angina is discharged from hospital, suffers a myocardial infarction and has to go into coronary care, the hospital will not be funded for that. What a brilliant proposal—extremely helpful to NHS trusts, I am sure.
  Kali Mountford: I admire the hon. Gentleman's concern about delayed discharges. What resources would he commit to ensure that discharges were not delayed? How much money would he give?
  Dr. Fox: It is a matter of priorities. If we were in office we would not be wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on the Government's pointless waiting list targets. We would not be employing the extra tens of thousands of bureaucrats that the Government require for an endless paperchase which today's proposals will make worse.
  514
  We want to talk about whether the measure will make whatever funding is available work better or worse for patient care. The answer is clear: it will work worse because the situation is getting worse.
  In the first quarter of this year, 8 per cent. of elderly patients who were discharged were readmitted within 28 days, and 3.2 per cent. were readmitted within seven. That is a massive increase even on just a year ago. What is the Government's response to this very complex situation? They have produced this pointless, ill-thought-out, punitive—a word used by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—contradictory and self-defeating Bill.
  Mrs. Joan Humble rose—
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey rose
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way to one of the revenge of the clones later. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House must quieten down; this is a debate, and we should have reasoned argument on both sides.
  Dr. Fox: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it right for an hon. Member to refer to another as a clone?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard quite a number of expressions which on the whole I would prefer not to be used, but I do not think that that word has been classified as non-parliamentary language.
  Dr. Fox: You can always tell when hon. Members are getting desperate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The trouble with the Bill is that it tries to blame local authorities for something that is beyond their control. It will place new burdens and costs on them. It is based on false assumptions. It is will increase bureaucracy and red tape, damage health and social care relationships, produce perverse incentives and increase the likelihood of decisions on care being taken inappropriately. In other words, the Bill runs the risk of producing exactly the opposite of what the Government claim it will produce.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The central thrust of Conservative party policy on the care of the elderly appears to involve more and more institutional care. On the hon. Gentleman's travels around Europe—I met him on a plane a few weeks ago—has he dropped in on Denmark, which has a similar proportion of elderly and very elderly people to this country, but no old people's homes at all?
  Dr. Fox: That is a very useful point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I would agree on one thing: for elderly patients, as for all other patients, the most important phrase is "appropriateness of care", which involves having a full range of provision. Some patients require and want long-term care in nursing or residential homes,

  515
  but that will not be available if the capacity decreases as quickly as it has in the past five years, and the Bill will do nothing to help.
  The Bill will add substantially to the burdens on already hard-pressed local authorities. At least the Government are being consistent. Let us consider the list of obligations imposed without proper funding in recent years, starting with flooding. Emergency grants from central Government are not even remotely covering all the costs of recent floods, as millions of council tax payers are about to find out. The Homelessness Act 2002, passed during the previous parliamentary Session, imposed new burdens on local authorities to draw up new homelessness strategies. Air targets have been devised by Brussels and announced by the Minister for the Environment but are being funded by no one. Waste recycling will cost at least £55 million, and there are asylum costs, travel concessions and the huge burden of children's services, the costs of which fall on local government and accounted for 64 per cent. of the total overspend last year.
  Dr. Desmond Turner rose—
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Dr. Fox: I have given way already and will do so again later.
  There is no point in Ministers saying that they are giving more money to local authorities, because the rate at which they are piling on responsibilities is greater than the rate at which funding is being applied to local authorities to cope with Those responsibilities.
  Most absurd of all, the Secretary of State said today that the Government have introduced the Bill because bed blocking is costing the NHS money and local government must play its part in sharing responsibility, but what are they proposing to do? They will fine the NHS £100 million and give the money to social services so that, when they fine them, they can give back the money. If that is not complete bureaucratic madness, I do not know what is. It can only help bureaucrats and produce paperchases; it will do nothing to help local government, hospitals or the patients themselves.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way on that point because I was lost earlier when I heard that health service costs would he reduced. Is it not a fact that the procedures in the health service put up the costs, so if beds are vacated—for which we would be thankful—there will be more operations, more procedures and increased costs and therefore health service costs will not be reduced?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman may be right. It is certainly true that despite the increased amount of money that the Government have undoubtedly put into the NHS in real terms, the level of activity coming out is very much less than predicted. Funding has increased by almost 11 per cent. in real terms, but the level of activity is up by less than 2 per cent. Clearly, therefore, there is a huge amount of wastage.
  It seems that Ministers are not yet content with the amount of costs that they are imposing on local government. When one asks local authorities how much
  516
  they think the scheme will cost, one finds that their estimate is a lot higher than that of the Secretary of State. The Association of London Government estimates that the cost to it alone will be £25 million a year. Buckinghamshire estimates that it will cost £2 million; Essex that it will cost £3 million; Cambridgeshire, £1.4 million; Surrey, between £6 million and £7 million; and Kent, £5.5 million. What are Ministers trying to do? Do they have any understanding of the real problems of local government in the real world? I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
  Dr. Starkey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least demonstrating, unlike the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), that he notices women and realises that they are individuals, not clones. Is he suggesting that councils should not fulfil their current obligations unless they get additional money from Government? Why does he think that some councils can fulfil their obligations but not others? Does he not think that the councils bear some responsibility for that?
  Dr. Fox: Of course, they are supposed to work in a partnership wherever possible. But the whole point of the debate is to examine whether the Bill will improve the working relationships between health and social services, or whether it will make them more difficult. As I pointed out to the Secretary of State, if he thinks that the Bill will improve the relationship, why is 30 per cent. of the entire Bill devoted to new bodies being introduced to resolve disputes which, as the Bill admits, do not currently exist? That is not an improvement in the working of the current system, which is what everybody would like.
  Much of the Government's case has been based on their interpretation of the system in Sweden. On 18 April 2002, the Secretary of State made a statement in the House of Commons, announcing the Command Paper, "Delivering the NHS Plan", in which he said that the Government were impressed by the success in getting delayed discharges from hospitals down of the system in countries like Sweden and Denmark. Had the Secretary of State made a visit to examine the project? No, he had not. According to the Health Service Journal,the Government's decision to bring in cross-charging was taken without even consulting Gert Alaby, the architect of the Swedish model on which Mr. Wanless had placed so much emphasis—although it was also reported that Mr. Wanless had not met Mr. Alaby either. Yet the Department of Health said recently that there had been conversations with a "number of people" in Sweden.
  If the Secretary of State or Mr. Wanless want to know about the problems in Sweden, they can ask the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who made a telling intervention in the Queen's Speech debate:
  "May I point out some of the differences between that model and what we have been discussing today? In Sweden there was a two-year lead-in time before the proposals were implemented. In addition, local authorities had responsibility for a vast range of alternative provision, including direct commissioning of health care."—[Official Report,14 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 231.]
  The hon. Gentleman seems to have a much greater grasp than the Secretary of State. Had the Government looked at the model, they would have found that Swedish local authorities are responsible for social care as well as hospital care, so they can affect patient flows into the

  517
  acute sector. That is not possible in our system, because the primary care trusts have discretion over the flow of patients into the hospitals, but local government is to be made financially liable for discharging—it will be punished for something over which it has absolutely no control. Where is the fairness in such a proposal? Do Ministers have any idea of the damage that they might be inflicting on the ground?
  Several Labour Members, including the Secretary of State, have mentioned working relationships. The central proposal in the Bill risks undoing what has undoubtedly been a recent improvement in the NHS: the increased willingness of health and social care departments to work together. That still has a long way to go but, in the words of one Labour Member, "the direction of travel is positive when viewed as part of the complete patient journey," which in English means that things are getting a bit better on the ground. The real change that the Bill might introduce was well expressed by the British Medical Association, which fears that the plans will seriously damage working relationships:
  "the BMA supports co-operation and improving co-ordination between health and social services to provide seamless high quality services for vulnerable patients who may be adversely affected by the barriers that exist between social services and the NHS. The proposal for fines has the potential to damage some of the good relationships that have evolved with the greater opportunities for joint working. "
  It is not alone in that view. The Association of Directors of Social Services, the NHS Confederation and the Local Government Association made the following joint statement:
  "Real progress has been made in forging partnerships between health and local government, including the particularly successful joint work to alleviate winter pressures."
  We would all welcome that. The statement continued:
  "A recent Audit Commission report endorsed the successful partnerships already in place. We want to build on these to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, reduce delayed discharges and provide integrated health and social care services. It would be a retrograde step if the current proposals undermined this trust and led to the development of adversarial relationships rather than cooperation between health and local government".
  Mr. Martlew rose—
  Mr. Steinberg rose—
  Dr. Fox: I will give way in a moment.
  It is typical of the Government to believe that they know better than those on the front line who are already responsible for these services, and so like them to produce yet another one-size-fits-all blueprint designed in Whitehall against all the advice of those with hands-on experience.
  Mr. Steinberg: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, although I do not necessarily agree with all his comments. What would he do to a social services department that receives money to use to unblock beds in hospitals but does not use that money accordingly? What sanctions would he use against authorities that do not use the money for the purpose for which it is given?
  Dr. Fox: When we in the House talk about sanctions, I think we are in danger of believing that Whitehall
  518
  always knows best about resolving these problems. What has been happening on the ground—I am the first to admit that the approach has definitely improved—is an evolution of understanding between health and social care and an improvement in the working relationship. That is not universal, and the relationship still leaves a lot to be desired in some parts of the country, but it is improving. Why risk undermining all that by introducing a Bill that will set one part of the system against another? That cannot make any sense. When all those on the ground are saying that this is mistake, why are the Government pushing ahead with a proposal that can only lead to greater acrimony?
  Under the proposals, local authorities will come under pressure as never before. The question we must ask is whether these changes will increase or decrease the probability of finding the most suitable care and type of placement for individual patients' needs. Alternatively, are the proposals likely to mean that, to avoid financial penalties, patients will be removed from hospital to the first available place, whether it is the right place or not? That is a major problem. Are we likely to see a repeat of some of the awful cases of inappropriate care being provided for elderly people? Elderly patients have a right to feel less secure under these changes—for the first time, they are being regarded in the system as a financial liability to be moved around for cost reasons.
  The potential for perverse incentives as a result of the Bill is equally worrying. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) raised the issue of the impact on general practitioners. Let me tell him one of the problems that the Bill will produce. GPs who are already finding it difficult to get their patients placed in a care home will come to understand something new: precedence will be given by local authorities to patients who are already in acute wards in a hospital. What will be the inevitable result? It will be the creation of a perverse incentive whereby GPs know that they are most likely to be able to get a patient into a care home by first getting them into an acute unit. That has the potential to cause more delayed discharges, by blocking more hospital beds, than we have at present. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend, but that will be the effect in the real world. It is the inevitable result of the Government not understanding how the system works in reality.
  Mr. Roger Gale: As the Secretary of State was unable or unwilling to answer this point, perhaps my hon. Friend can touch on it. The logical extension of what he is saying is that a problem that is already bad will be made worse. One of the principal causes of bed blocking is that families will not accept the provision that is being offered and want choice. How will that dispute be resolved within a three-day time limit? Will not beds be even more blocked as a result of what my hon. Friend describes?
  Dr. Fox: As I said, there is the great possibility that things will deteriorate rather than improve as a result of the Bill. I am sure that Ministers do not intend it to have that effect, but that is what will happen, and it is the Bill, not the intention, that we are discussing. We have to take into account what we judge to be its effect on real patients in the real world, not what we think Ministers might want to happen.

  519
  The Bill leaves far too many questions unanswered. Those who followed the sad affair of the Government's creation of the care home crisis will be aware that there was much consensus on the Care Standards Act 2000, and that the damage came not from the contents of the Act itself, but from the ministerial regulations that were applied later on, which were recently subjected to a U-turn. Indeed, the Government's standard approach is to produce the merest skeleton of a Bill only to flesh it out later with mile upon mile of red tape and regulation. It is usually a sign that they are making it up as they go along.
  The Bill falls neatly intro that category. Far too much of it depends on subsequent regulation to make it work and many of the important questions go unanswered. For example, who lays down the level of fines? The Secretary of State estimates that local authorities will be liable to pay a total of £100 million, but who sets the fine? How often will it be changed? Will there be an upper limit or will it be at the discretion of a future Secretary of State? Will fines apply if there is no appropriate bed, no other placement or no individual care available? Who will make those decisions? What will the Secretary of State do to determine who is, or is expected to become, a qualifying hospital patient? What procedures will be used and how does he justify such a ludicrous level of mismanagement when uses such achingly funny rhetoric about devolving power?
  Then we have the problem of the dispute resolution mechanism. The disputes do not exist at the moment, but the Government admit that they will arise when the Bill is implemented. Three clauses out of 10 relate to the resolution of conflicts. Strategic health authorities are being established to steer the panels, which means that the NHS will be judge and jury in disputes between the NHS and local authorities. What sort of people will sit on the panels? What qualifications will they need? Most importantly, how much time and money will this nonsense divert from patient care into unnecessary, pointless and mindless bureaucratic squabbles?
  Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of Age Concern's opinion that the Government's proposals may be in conflict with standard 2 of the national service framework for older people, which specifies that older people should be treated as individuals and enabled to make choices about their care?
  Dr. Fox: I am sure that that is the correct approach. To be fair, I am not saying that the Government intend to do otherwise. Regardless of their intentions, however, the Bill could become another Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and have the opposite effect of that intended. The Bill is a bad piece of legislation. Although it includes some good things that could command support on both sides of the House, they are totally outweighed by the dreadful provisions that I have outlined.
  The Bill will not achieve its aims. It may well result in exactly the opposite. It is unfair to local government; it will divert time and effort away from patient care into bureaucratic games; it will create perverse incentives; and it will increase the risk of inappropriate care, especially for the elderly. It is part of the paperchase NHS created by the Government. It is about throughput not outcomes. It is about a "Never mind the quality, feel the width" health service. It punishes one group for the
  520
  failure of others over whom they have no control. Of all new Labour's crazy ideas, this is the craziest. I urge the House to oppose the Bill before untold damage is done.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  3.44 pm
  Glenda Jackson: Setting aside the somewhat hysterical contribution of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I think it would be impossible to find anyone in the House or the country who would argue against the basis of the Government's proposal to have a national and properly integrated, multifaceted, high-quality service for older people. I do not think that anyone would argue with the Government's attempts to ensure that taxpayers' money earmarked for the provision of integrated social services for the elderly is spent. There can be no possible argument with the fact that the Government have their heart in the right place. They are clearly committed to ensuring that care for the elderly is not limited exclusively to residential care or nursing care, or to the practice of keeping elderly people in hospital long after their medical condition warrants a discharge.
  Local authorities have been criticised for failing to spend the taxpayers' money that is accorded to them. That criticism could not, by the widest stretch of the imagination, be levelled against my local authority, Camden. It is not only council of the year, but a beacon authority for the care that it provides to elderly people. It has also more than spent the money that was earmarked by the Government for the provision of social services. It has exceeded the £30,876,000 given to it by more than £2 million. There is no doubt that the authority takes on board the thrust of the Government's policies, and not only in the provision of integrated services for the elderly. It is the first local authority to create an integrated mental health and social services trust. I pay tribute to the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for ensuring that that was created.
  Having been as polite as it is possible to be, I come to the difficult bit, which is to be critical of the Government. I would be less than honest if I did not say that it is my bounden duty to criticise aspects of their proposals. I am most critical of the idea that social services are exclusively responsible for ensuring that an elderly person does not remain in hospital longer than necessary. My constituency is part of an inner-London borough. Like other such boroughs, we have a suppliers' market for residential nursing home places. The homes charge and obtain higher fees for clients from the private sector. My local authority has received additional funding for the building care component, but there is still a desperate shortage of places, not least because patients in the two main teaching hospitals in the borough of Camden are not exclusively Camden residents. Social services departments outside Camden find places for their residents within my borough's boundaries because the treatment there is best suited to their needs.

  521
  There is another problem. It arises, curiously, from the fact that the Government have been hoisted on the petard of their own success. They listened to what hon. Members said about providing individuals with the ability and, indeed, the money to arrange their own domiciliary care. That has had an impact on local authorities, especially ones like Camden, because it removes the ability for authorities to block buy domiciliary care when elderly individuals return home.
  Difficulties also arise in hospitals and medical teams when they have to determine whether an individual is ready to leave hospital. If they agree that someone can leave, the next problem is ensuring that that person can return to an independent and healthy life.
  As I said, Camden has spent more than central Government gave it to provide integrated services for elderly people. It has increased the numbers of step-down beds and domiciliary beds and transformed some of its housing stock so that it can take people in wheelchairs, but there is still an element of bed blocking.
  In some cases the failure to remove an elderly person from hospital has to do with limited capacity in occupational therapy. That point is anecdotal and I do not have figures to support it. As a Conservative Back Bencher said, there may be difficulties because the family disagree with what is proposed for their relative. It is not unusual for an elderly person to have no family or for the only person capable of caring for them to be as old and, in some instances, as frail as they are, so a return to home, even with a properly integrated programme of domiciliary care, may not be the best solution for that individual.
  There seems to me to be gross inequity in the Government's proposals. I listened with interest to what the Secretary of State said about setting a ceiling of £100 million on the fines that may be imposed on local authorities and about taking that money out of the NHS. The fact remains, however, that local authority social services are not exclusively responsible for delayed discharges.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady makes a good point with which I agree. Does she also agree that readmission is not exclusively the fault of hospitals? She referred to the multidisciplinary teams responsible for discharge delays, but they may also be responsible for high readmission rates, so it would be wholly wrong to fine hospitals for those rates, for the same reason that it would be wrong to fine social services departments.
  Glenda Jackson: I hesitate to agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is wholly wrong to impose fines because there are examples of best practice, certainly in hospitals. I know that some hospitals—not, I hasten to add, in my constituency—are dilatory in tackling these issues, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that some councils are less than good and do not spend the entire amount earmarked for social care for the elderly. However, we delude ourselves if we believe that the integrated, high quality care that we all want our elderly people to receive will be delivered by proposals that, in targeting bad councils, have a deleterious effect on local authorities that are committed to, and doing their best to deliver, those services.
  522
  I am concerned about the time afforded by the Government for consultation. There is an opportunity to reconsider the model on which the proposals have been based. I am not for one moment saying that they will not be effective, but this may not be the best model for achieving the aim to which the Government are clearly committed. There should be an opportunity for local authorities that are delivering high quality services and want to improve their delivery to make representations to the Government about the model that they would introduce. There are also justifiable concerns about the additional costs to local authorities, which are inherent in the Bill.
  There is no uniformity among the many agencies responsible for ensuring that elderly people, once discharged from hospital, receive the care that is best for them. There are variations in practices and disagreements about which produces the best care. I am fully prepared to accept that the Government's heart is in the right place, but the basis of implementing their proposals is partnership, which means that the constituent partners who will eventually deliver these high quality services have at least to agree on the basics. It would be nice if they all had similar information technology, but they do not, so any attempt to track down the best person to provide a service among a wide range of service providers is time consuming. As we know, time equals money, so additional burdens may be placed on local authorities.
  As I said, I strongly believe that the Government's heart is in the right place. We all want to see the highest quality services delivered, but I urge the Secretary of State to consider the points that will undoubtedly be made because there are dangers in the Bill, even though I will, of course, vote for its Second Reading.
  3.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Secretary of State told us that there is no magic wand to deal with delayed discharges, and I agree. The Bill is not a solution to that problem; it will simply exacerbate it and cause further problems in the NHS and the whole care system. The right hon. Gentleman's announcement of a £100 million sweetener will do nothing to remove the bitter taste of the Bill. The fact that that money is to be taken from the NHS, given to social services and then returned to the NHS is an admission that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a crude market mechanism that does not reflect the complexities of the situation.
  The Secretary of State told us that the proposed penalty system is based on one that was introduced 10 years ago in Sweden, but the penalties introduced there were only part of a much wider set of reforms to that country's care system and they were arrived at after a good deal of consultation and debate. They aimed to shift the centre of gravity in the Swedish care system out of the acute sector and into community care systems. That is not the aim of this proposal, which is grafted on to a system that includes a large amount of private and independent provision, whereas care in Sweden is largely provided by the state, through local govt. By contrast, in the UK, we have seen the NHS withdraw from long-term care, and a fragmented, unplanned set of arrangements put in its place.

  523
  Reading the report of the Health Committee's inquiry into delayed discharges earlier this year, I found that some of the most interesting hearings were those with the Department's officials. Their ideas do not appear to have got through to the Ministers framing the policy and the measures in this Bill. For example, the chief inspector of social services told the Committee in February:
  "Our concern about the over-75s is that delayed discharges here are a symptom that we need to do something about the totality of the system for older people. Actually just homing in on the issue of delayed discharges is concealing that there is a systems issue."
  It is a systems issue, yet the Bill provides a quick fix by introducing a single incentive that will have a series of consequences, many of which are not those intended by Ministers. It is certainly not a solution for the whole system.
  Mr. Roger Williams: The Bill deals with England and Wales, but both health and social services are devolved responsibilities, so I hoped that this would be enabling legislation within the spirit of the devolution settlement. In Wales, the Assembly already provides free care for six weeks after discharge from hospital. It would like, if it had the power, to provide free long-term care for the elderly, which it believes would prevent unnecessary admission to hospital and promote prompt discharge.
  Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend has made an important point about whether the Bill should apply equally to England and Wales. It is one thing for English Health Ministers to want to put the proposal into practice, but it is entirely different for it to apply automatically to Wales. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through the House, we will find a way for Wales to have discretion. Given the Government's commitment to devolution, I hope that the Bill will include powers to enable the Welsh Assembly to go as far as it wants in providing long-term care and making personal care free on the basis of an assessment of need.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My interest in these matters derives from the fact that I introduced a measure as far back as 1986 covering the whole UK, so I am interested in seeing how the Bill progresses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State, who made an important point—not mentioned by the Opposition spokesman—when he said that of course we want to consult patients, their families and their advocates?
  Mr. Gale: How do you do that in three days?
  Mr. Burstow: The Bill does not stipulate the patient's right of consent to discharge arrangements. Nothing in the Bill stipulates the carer's right to be consulted about whether or not they wish to continue to take on a caring duty or, indeed, take it on in the first place. There have been representations from many organisations about the absence of those issues from the Bill. I hope that in Committee we can move beyond the vague promises that that will be dealt with in regulations to cast-iron commitments that it will be dealt with in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked how consultation could be completed in three days. We have been told that the Government are satisfied that we
  524
  will have a partial assessment of someone's needs while they are in hospital. What on earth is that? How does it relate to the single assessment that the Government said would be in place from April this year? We now have the spectacle of the Government wanting to rush through discharges and implement an assessment procedure that does not include everyone who ought to be part of the process, shunting patients into an unsatisfactory interim provision and leaving them there too long.
  Dr. Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many local authorities, including my own, have already attempted to solve that problem by providing heavily supported, if I can so describe it, accommodation for patients who have been discharged—in my local authority's case, for up to six weeks—to give them time to decide whether they need to go into full-time residential care or go back home? Is that not better than leaving those patients in a hospital bed, which is unsuitable for elderly patients?
  Mr. Burstow: It is better, but there will be a short decision-making process of three days to get someone out of hospital, which does not address their long-term care. We need a process that ensures that appropriate judgments are made. The hon. Lady must address the fact that the provision that her local authority has been able to make does not exist universally across the country, and is unlikely to come on-stream when the Bill is enacted. I want to try to explain why that is the case.
  The Bill is all about treating symptoms, and does not tackle causes such as lack or loss of capacity upstream and downstream in our care system. Budget pressures have forced social services departments in the past 10, 15 or 20 years increasingly to ration access to care. Eligibility criteria have been drawn ever tighter as a result. Indeed, the Local Government Association says that two thirds of local authorities have narrowed their criteria still further in the past two years. They have done so by denying help to people with moderate needs or carers; by making people with high needs wait, often in their own home; and by setting limits on price, quantity and quality of care. In the past 20 years, social services departments have withdrawn home help services that offer domestic help and have concentrated care on the most disabled and dependent, in stark contrast to what is done in Sweden—the exemplar that the Government have chosen to use for the Bill. In Sweden, people still have home help services, which cover such activities as cleaning, shopping, outings, social contact and so on. The penalty system to be introduced by the Bill will undermine efforts to develop the preventive services that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and many other Members believe should be widely available. Investment in prevention can postpone the onset of disablement, disability, illness and dependency, and has the biggest long-term impact on the problem of inappropriate admissions to hospital that result in delays in discharge.
  It is not only upstream that there are capacity problems—there are serious capacity constraints downstream as well. We have serious staffing problems in the care system across the country, including a 15 per cent. vacancy rate for occupational therapists. Indeed, 40 per cent. of local authorities report severe difficulties in recruiting occupational therapists, who are key

  525
  players in facilitating a speedy discharge from hospital, enabling adaptations and changes in someone's property to be made quickly. If the OT is not there, who will do the assessments? That issue was considered by the Select Committee, but I do not think that it reached a final conclusion on how to progress the matter.
  Mrs. Humble: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in Lancashire occupational therapists are employed by the health authority. If the OT is not there to provide a service, that is not social services' fault, but the fault of the health service. That complicates the situation.
  Mr. Burstow: Basically, there are not enough OTs to go round. There is also the spectre of social services and the health service competing for a scarce resource. Until additional OTs are in place, we shall continue to have logjams in the system, as there is a fundamental lack of capacity. Those capacity constraints also apply to home care staff—the latest figures suggest that there is a 10 per cent. vacancy rate. We have serious problems recruiting such staff because they are low paid and undervalued. Unless we tackle that, we shall continue to have problems and will certainly not fulfil the Government's ambition to have more people cared for in their own homes.
  Because of rationing, fewer people, as has been said, are receiving home care. The figure may be disputed, but 110,000 fewer home care packages are being delivered. Ministers say that that is because people are getting other services instead, such as meals on wheels, day care and so on. It is clear, however, that the figures for home care support have gone down. People who get such care, however, are getting it for more hours because they are more dependent. The Government's mantra is prevention. In practice, however, when they are judged on the figures, their emphasis is on dealing with crises and the most dependent people, and not prevention.
  Capacity has also been lost in the care home sector, and is not being replaced by more care in people's own homes. The loss of 60,000 beds over the past five years has been mentioned but, more importantly, in the past three years closures have exceeded new registrations, which have been flatlining for at least three years.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the loss of 60,000 care home places, as mentioned by the Conservative spokesman, and also referred to the report by the Select Committee on Health on delayed discharges. Has he not seen the part of the report dealing with care home places, which suggests the loss is nothing like 60,000?
  Mr. Burstow: I read that and the dissection of the Government's figures. The Committee was fair, and acknowledged that the figure of 19,000, which is regularly trotted out by Ministers, is probably more misleading than the figure of 60,000 cited in Laing and Buisson's report.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, whatever Ministers may say. Before he is led astray by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), may I point out that there was not a unanimous decision by the
  526
  Health Committee on the number of beds lost? The report was actually rammed through by a majority of aspiring Labour Back Benchers.
  Mr. Burstow: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is one of those aspiring Back Benchers.
  I want to focus on the figures from Laing and Buisson's report for 2001, which give the net position—the gross figures have given cause for concern. In 2001, 107 new homes, amounting to 3.800 new beds, were registered. During that period, however, 828 homes closed with the loss of 16,600 beds. There is therefore a clear downward trend in the sector, which, in some parts of the country, has contributed to the problem of delayed charge.
  The Minister told us in a statement in July that the Government aim to stimulate the care home market to get more care home beds back into the sector. They stated in their document that they want an extra 6,000 beds by 2006, the majority by 2004. I hope that the Minister can tell us how those beds are to be achieved, where they will be provided, and how the barriers posed by the development value of land will be overcome, given the investment costs and the risks involved, and given the fact that the rate of fees has still not gone up sufficiently to bring new players into the market. Why would anyone come into a market where the fee rates are unsustainably low? Work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation clearly shows a shortfall in the resources going into the sector.
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way yet again. He is exercised by the number of care beds in the system, and of course that is important, but is he aware of a recent national audit commissioned by the NHS executive, which found that 17 per cent. of elderly people living in nursing homes no longer needed nursing home care at all? Surely it is more important to make sure that the right people are in the right homes than to worry about the absolute number of beds, given that 17 per cent. of elderly people were apparently in the wrong place.
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a self-evident but nevertheless valuable point. I am not arguing that care homes are good and anything else is irrelevant but that there is a fundamental problem of capacity, not just in care home places but in home care places. We need more investment upstream to ensure that we can postpone or prevent the onset of the disability and illness that result in admissions in the first place. That ought to be a key priority for investment, but I fear that it will be denied because of the penalties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) has drawn my attention to figures produced in Surrey. I understand that 225 people are experiencing delayed discharge from hospitals in the county, and 120 of them are believed to be the responsibility of the county. Of those 120, 30 are funded but no placement is available because of care home closures and the lack of capacity that I have described, and the other 90 are unfunded.
  From next April, the building capacity grant about which the Government have spoken a great deal, and which has been paid for the past one and a half years,

  527
  comes to an end. That grant has been used to provide ongoing services, new care packages, the fees paid to care homes and for other purposes. Those are ongoing commitments that arise from a specific grant, and in future years they will have to be funded out of the 6 per cent. real-terms growth. However, the funding commitments that councils have already made will leave little of that new money available for new investment in new services.
  I shall give an example from Kent county council, which received £2.12 million through that grant in 2001–02. In a full year, the council believes that the cost of its investments amounts to £6.5 million, but in 2002–03 its grant for building capacity was £4.7 million—a gap of £2 million. The gap continues to grow because the people for whom the council is providing services continue to need those services. Why will not the Minister confirm that the penalties system is simply designed to give the Treasury its pound of flesh for giving extra money to social services in the Budget this year? Even that extra money, welcome though it is, leaves social services behind the curve in terms of meeting demand and reducing rationing in the care system.
  During the Select Committee hearings on delayed discharge, officials told the Committee that dementia
  "is a principal cause of delayed discharge because of the complexity that having dementia plus a physical illness produces in terms of developing a good discharge plan."
  and that the latest figures
  "suggest that about 70 per cent. of people in nursing homes, not EMI homes but nursing homes, have a level of cognitive impairment that affects their mental function."
  There is not enough provision in this country, whether in people's own homes or in care homes, to provide a decent standard of care to people with dementia, and nothing that I have heard today suggests that that is to be addressed in the near future. In the national service framework for older people, the targets that have been set for dementia care do not require anything to be done until 2004.
  The Bill undermines partnership arrangements. It is a recipe for conflict. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, it is wrong to blame social services as though delayed discharge were their sole responsibility. The Bill turns patients into commodities labelled as bringing in or losing money, depending on one's point of view. The wording of the Bill sounds like a fed-up parent mediating between two scrapping children. It is not surprising that the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services oppose the Bill, but it might be surprising that the NHS Confederation does. Those are the managers who will have to live with the consequences of the Bill that the Government are trying to foist upon them.
  Why do not the Government instead take forward the ideas suggested by the NHS Confederation for joint local protocols and building on existing partnerships? The Government say that they will aid partnership through the Bill, but it is a strange sort of partnership where one partner is given a stick with which to beat the other. That sounds more like domestic violence than relationship building.
  The Bill ignores the patients' and carers' perspective. All the submissions from charities representing older people and carers that I have read oppose the penalty
  528
  system. The Bill as drafted makes patients the passive recipients of care, rather than active participants in their own care and recovery—
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: So what does the patient stuck in NHS provision—it may be an older person or a person with a mental illness—do when, despite all the protocols and all the good intentions, nobody will help them move?
  Mr. Burstow: Under the Bill, such people will not have access to advocacy services to help them with their discharge and they will not even be asked, because the Bill does not address their right to give consent to be discharged. It does not even address whether the carer should be consulted. Such considerations are absent from the Bill. We have the vague promise that the discharge workbook, which the Government have been promising for two years to update, will be updated. The hon. Gentleman should address his question to Ministers, not to me.
  Why does the Bill make no provision for patient consent or for consulting carers? I hope that we can persuade the Government to do that in Committee. As Carers UK has documented in its report, "You can take him home now", 77 per cent. of carers said that they were not given a choice about taking on a caring responsibility. Carers UK also found that emergency readmissions had increased from 19 to 43 per cent. among the carers surveyed, and carers increasingly saw early discharge as the reason. Emergency readmissions have been increasing. The latest figures available show that 122,357 people experienced emergency readmissions, which is an 11 per cent. rise in two years. In its representations, the Royal College of Nursing points out that that is symptomatic of inappropriate discharges.
  In the NHS plan, we were told that there would be an equivalent penalty system for emergency readmissions. What we have heard today is a watering-down of that, so there is no equivalence between emergency readmissions and delayed discharge. Instead, they are to be linked to star ratings and nothing else.
  Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: I must make progress, so I will continue, if I may.
  Standard 2 of the national service framework states that older people should receive care that meets their needs as individuals, and that the role of the N HS and social services departments is to enable people to make choices about their own care. The penalties will not facilitate that. Health care should be driven by the needs of patients, but the Bill puts tick-boxes and spreadsheets first. Ministerial obsession with delayed discharge is distorting priorities. Penalties to incentivise one part of the system will have knock-on effects.
  What happens to the elderly person in their own home who is waiting for an assessment? What happens to their care? The Bill means that social services departments will be forced to prioritise the person in a hospital bed ahead of the person in their own home—a case of them being out of sight and out of mind, and certainly not being a priority when it comes to avoiding penalties.

  529
  The message that the Bill sends to the House and the country is that the Government are setting up a system that creates perverse incentives where the only way in which some people can get appropriate care and ensure that they are fast-tracked is through hospital admission.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman estimated that the cost to local authorities of the provisions on fines would be approximately £50 million. What mathematical formula did he use to arrive at that figure?
  Mr. Burstow: That is a very fair question. Indeed, we will be asking some questions about how the Secretary of State arrived at the £100 million figure that was mentioned today, which is very interesting and double the Liberal Democrats' estimate. We decided to adopt a conservative approach. The basis of the calculation was to use the most recently available delayed discharge figures and apply the rates differentially, based on £120 for London and the south-east and £100 everywhere else. We applied those levels to the figures that are provided on a regional basis, and that is how we produced our estimate. It is interesting that the Government's estimate is now twice as large. Perhaps that shows that they have figures that they have not yet made available that should be brought into the public domain.
  Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman asked his question and had his answer, so he cannot really expect me to give way again.
  The Bill is fatally flawed and will create a blame game between the national health service and social services. It will distort priorities, leave people waiting still longer in their homes to get the care that they need and result in patients and carers being left out of the equation. Delayed discharges are a symptom of chronic under-investment not only by this Government, but over decades, and of the rationing of care. The Bill does nothing to address those underlying problems; if anything, it will make them worse. That is why the Liberal Democrats will vote against it.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: When we debate a Bill on Second Reading, we basically debate its principles. I fundamentally disagree with the principles of this Bill, which I think is flawed and will ultimately prove damaging to many positive policies that the Government have promoted.
  My hon. Friends on the Front Bench deserve congratulation on many of the initiatives that they have developed, such as joint working, community care, the flexibilities in the Health Act 1999, limited pooling of budgets and care trusts. They have introduced a range of initiatives that have genuinely improved joint working locally, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said. However, I fear that the Bill is taking us in the other direction. I welcome the Government's increase in funding for local authority social services, but it is a belated recognition of the serious difficulties that many local councillors face.
  530
  The Select Committee on Health considered the figures for 2001–02 in its recent public expenditure inquiry. It is interesting to compare the real-terms growth of the national health service, at 9.4 per cent., with that of social services, which is 1.3 per cent. We are making assumptions about the Bill on the basis of the experience in that year and previous ones when that huge discrepancy existed in the funding of those two areas. An extra £100 million has been promised by the Secretary of State—it will be taken from health funding to go into social services—but the Health Committee estimated in its public expenditure inquiry, on the basis of the Government's figures, that local authorities are already spending £200 million more than their budget on social services in 2001–02. That puts his £100 million figure into context. Some 10 per cent. of English local authorities are spending more than their standard spending assessment levels.
  It is fair to say that we have treated social services as a poor relation—a term that was used by the Secretary of State. We are now putting the boot into that poor relation and we need to think the matter through very carefully. As my right hon. Friend made his speech, one of my hon. Friends asked me, "Who thought this one up?" In trying to work out some of the measures in the Queen's Speech whose logic I cannot understand, having believed in Labour party health policy for my whole adult life, I have concluded that some adviser or civil servant has been rooting around in the cellars of Richmond house and found in a file some dusty papers that were prepared for a Tory Secretary of State 20-odd years ago. That is the only conclusion that I can draw on the logic of foundation hospitals.
  The supposed logic behind the Bill is based on thinking that is completely outdated, because it is rooted in the social services environment of at least 20 years ago, when social services were direct providers of care and could offer care home places and accommodation under part III of the National Assistance Act 1948. I worked in social services for many years in the 1970s. I went to hospitals, saw patients who were deemed fit for discharge, assessed their suitability under part III, and could then arrange a direct placement under those provisions. That is no longer the case. The previous regime rapidly got rid of local authority direct care provision, and in answer to the Health Committee, the Government now describe the role of local authority social services as managing the private care market. The arena is now fundamentally different from the one in which I worked 20 years ago, when the thinking behind the Bill emerged.
  I am concerned about being told that we are considering practice in Sweden. I have always had a great interest in Scandinavian social policy, as I think that Scandinavia is light years ahead of the UK, having been there a number of times. I also found out recently that the origins of the Hinchliffe family are Norse, so perhaps I am genetically programmed towards Scandinavian social policy. However, I know enough about Sweden—indeed, I shall be there on Sunday evening with one or two of my hon. Friends—to know that its health and social care system is fundamentally different. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Swedish system is better resourced and Sweden has higher taxes and better services. There is also far less reliance on the private market, much greater direct

  531
  provision and different charging regimes. We are making the same mistake that Tory Front Benchers have made on several occasions—that of going to Timbuktu, plucking out an obscure policy and trying to apply it to the UK. That is a ludicrous thing to do because the systems are fundamentally different.
  Reference has been made to the Health Committee's recent inquiry into delayed discharges. I should like to quote from some of the evidence that we heard. Mike Leadbetter, the former president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said that the measure was "a perverse incentive" and added:
  "when you look further in Sweden, there is still the exact same number of delayed discharges in Sweden per population as there is in England."
  Dr. Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said:
  "people do not believe it is an effective incentive and that in places which have worked hard to have good relationships it could bring contesting back rather than partnership … It could be counterproductive."
  Dr. Chris James of the NHS Alliance, speaking from a primary care viewpoint, said:
  "If health fining social services is the Department's answer to facilitating partnership working, then we have a long way to go."
  Those are the people who will be doing the jobs, and John Ransford from the Local Government Association agreed with all those points. We got a clear thumbs down. My recollection is that we did not hear any support for the Bill apart from that of the Department of Health. Indeed, the support expressed by some of the officials whom we interviewed was muted, as they could envisage some of the likely problems.
  As I indicated in my intervention on the Secretary of State, my concern is that many factors outside the control of social services result in delayed discharges. For example, why do we not fine home nurses for failure to arrange home nursing packages because that sometimes results in delayed discharges? To my knowledge, that is a factor. What about ambulance service failures? I have come across cases in which people cannot get transport to enable them to leave hospital, especially if they have to travel some distance. What about the failure of housing authorities to arrange appropriate accommodation for people who can no longer go back to their homes because they need ground-floor accommodation or some form of specialised sheltered housing? What about resistance from relatives? I have encountered cases in which relatives have said, "No, she's not coming out, because in our view she's not fit to do so." What should we do in such circumstances—fine the relatives? The Government do not seem to have considered that question.
  Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, because my time is limited. I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend's position on this matter, as he knows, although I have a lot of respect for him on many other issues.
  What about choice? People may not want one care home. We have choice on one hand but contradiction at the heart of the measure. What about a private company's delay in supplying equipment required to
  532
  enable someone to leave hospital and be at home? Do we fine the private company the costs of the patient's remaining in hospital?
  What about delays caused by the national health service's failure to admit people from social services establishments? Admitting them would create vacancies for people who want to leave hospital. I have come across that problem in what little remains of our part III accommodation. We cannot get people out because we cannot get people in. It is ludicrous to concentrate on one small part to resolve a big problem.
  The Bill has not been thought through. Some of its provisions are vague. As has been said, the disputes procedure under the strategic health authority is not objective. Why should the strategic health authority, which is clearly in one camp, referee? It is not neutral, so there is no objectivity.
  What about the period for social services assessment that regulations will establish? A set period for an assessment does not take account of the huge differences in the ability of social services departments in different parts of the country to recruit staff. Some London boroughs are desperately short of social services staff. Surely we must take that into account.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am about to conclude. There is one solution.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Do nothing.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I can provide a solution. I am a moderniser and a radical. We should be bold and have common budgets. We should get rid of the boundaries between health and social care. One common budget is the way forward.
  4.31 pm
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was the fifth speaker in the debate. So far, only the Secretary of State's speech has supported the principles of the Bill. The score is therefore 4–1; it will be 5–1 when I sit down.
  In nearly 30 years in the House, I have seen many Bills. In a competitive field, the Bill that we are considering is one of the worst. It is divisive and mean-spirited and has no place in social care in the 21st century. It will poison the atmosphere between the two key organisations that should engage in a spirit of partnership to improve the quality of life of elderly people. Instead of joint incentives to co-operate, there will be a unilateral power to fine. At a stroke, the Bill destroys much of the language of seamless government, pooled decision making, joint budgets and integrated teams.
  As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, even those who work for the NHS—the supposed beneficiary of the scheme—do not support the Bill. The NHS Confederation described it as a retrograde step. The Royal College of Nursing
  "remains unconvinced that charging Social Services for delayed discharges from hospitals will lead to better discharge planning."

  533
  Scarce funds that were voted for the care of elderly people will disappear into the maw of the NHS, possibly to be spent on other groups.
  There will be yet more bureaucracy in a system that is buckling at the knees under paperwork. There will be perverse consequences as people find ways through and around the new rules. For example, care home providers may exert further pressure and increase prices when they know that the authority faces the threat of a fine, thereby diminishing the amount of care that can be bought.
  We heard from one doctor today and another in the debate on the Queen's Speech what GPs will do. Those whose patients need access to a care home will have an incentive to admit them first to a hospital so that they reach the front of the queue. Social services departments will cut some of their preventive work to protect their budget from the fines for which the Bill provides, which will make elderly people more likely to end up in hospital.
  The proposals might be tenable in an atmosphere where relationships had broken down, people were not working together and there was a refusal to co-operate. The previous Conservative Government were driven to introduce rate capping when the relationship between parts of local government and central Government had broken down. Nobody who follows health and social care matters could begin to argue that such an atmosphere prevails between health and social services. We simply have not reached that stage.
  There is a temptation to consider the Bill from the viewpoint of the NHS or from that of social services departments, but the right place to start is the viewpoint of the client, customer or patient. He or she wants an overall package of reform or investment that supports independence at home when possible, and in residential or nursing care when it is not. Of course it is wrong for elderly people to stay in hospital for longer than necessary. They lose the living skills that they had before admission and they become exposed to hospital-acquired infection. There is therefore no dispute about objectives.
  The reimbursement system, however, will place the patient and the carer in an untenable and often stressful position. Patients and the carers, who may already be distressed and disoriented, will become pawns in a professionally combative and hostile environment.
  Patients want a continuum of care from a variety of institutions, provided in a spirit of partnership. They want the people on whom they depend to work together and not against each other. The sole focus on delayed discharge, which is one stage in the spectrum of care, will inhibit efforts to build on services that prevent hospital admissions and investment in longer-term solutions. It will not contribute to building up capacity in the care sector. The client will feel the tensions that the regime creates.
  The regime that we are debating highlights publicly the contrast between Government rhetoric about the rights of carers and person-centred care and the lack of
  534
  individual protection that will result from the proposals. Kevin Terry of Age Concern expressed that well on 14 November. He said:
  "The proposals for reimbursement are ill-conceived and, we believe, impractical."
  The proposal is one sided; only one partner will be fined. When the NHS fails to admit a patient for a hip replacement or other operation on a pre-determined date, it faces no fine, although the delay may impose financial costs on others. I recently received a letter from my NHS trust. An image intensifier had broken down and a constituent was consequently unable to receive treatment for back pain. The chief executive wrote:
  "The piece of equipment … costs 100,000. A bid has been submitted to fund a replacement … a decision will not be known until later in the year … I will ensure you are kept informed as to when we hope to be able to progress with your treatment."
  My constituent and everyone else will not be treated until the local trust gets around to buying another intensifier. There are no penalties for the failure of the NHS to provide the quality of care that it should.
  The explanatory notes give a further example of one-sidedness. Paragraph 31 states:
  "If for some reason the patient is not discharged at this point, then the social services authority is not liable to make any further payment, as it is not responsible for any further delay."
  That is fair. However, if the social services department has reserved and paid for a bed in a home and the NHS fails to discharge the patient, the former will be out of pocket but receive no reimbursement from the latter.
  As several speakers have pointed out, one key assumption underpins the Bill: a delayed discharge is the fault of social services. Many delays are caused by other factors such as self-funders awaiting the home of their choice, lack of community health services or a transfer to a specialist service in the NHS. The fault may lie with the housing department rather than the social services department. In many counties that have a two-tier authority, the housing authority is often at fault but the social services department will take the hit.
  As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, the social services department is the under-resourced partner in the equation. It has not received the same increases as the NHS. Let us consider the extra resources that the Secretary of State mentioned. What the Chancellor has given through the comprehensive spending review the Deputy Prime Minister will remove through the redistribution of grant. Many counties have been promised the same grant in cash terms for next year as they received last year. That is no basis for further investment in education and social services.
  In the south-east, despite all the investment that the Government mentioned in rehabilitation and community services and the good working relationship between the two departments, the overriding reason for delayed transfers is simply capacity. The problem has been exacerbated by inadequate funding in an environment of increasing demand for services for older people. Simply fining social services will not address the core problem. If the Government want faster progress, as I believe they do, the Department of Health ought to be giving positive assistance to Hampshire county council and other councils that want to expand the capacity of their nursing home sectors.

  535
  We need a holistic approach with incentives, not a narrow approach with fines. I am amazed that Labour Members who have sat on local authorities and who are close to these issues are letting their Government get away with this. If the Conservatives had introduced this measure, they would have walked all over us, complaining about internal markets and all the rest, yet they are not stopping their Government. I genuinely believe that this is a mistake, and I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again.
  4.40 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I agree with the many Members who have said that we can all applaud the aims of the Bill. No one wants to see elderly people unnecessarily delayed in hospital. Elderly people deserve to be cared for in the most appropriate setting, and we need to examine ways of ensuring that that is provided.
  One of the other aims of the Bill is to establish better communication between health and social services departments. Of course that should happen; these are the two agencies that have responsibility for looking after the very vulnerable people in our communities. If I have a concern, however, it is about the manner in which the Bill sets about achieving those two aims. I am raising my concerns not from the point of view of the social services departments in my constituency, which could be subjected to substantial fines; in fact, quite the opposite. I cross my fingers when I say this, but my local hospital does not have a problem with delayed discharges.
  I am always extremely sceptical about statistics, especially those relating to health and social services. I was shocked and amazed, last year, to see that my hon. Friend the Minister had said, in response to a written answer, that north-west Lancashire had a 10.6 per cent. delayed discharge rate, and that that compared with 4.2 per cent. in south Lancashire and 0.2 per cent. in east Lancashire. I wrote to the then chair of North West Lancashire health authority and received a reply that can be described only as a confusing analysis of how the statistics are arrived at. She wrote:
  "The figure of 10.6%is a plan figure which is provided by the Authority's 2000/2001 Service and Financial Framework."
  She went on to describe how the figures were arrived at, but ended by saying:
  "I am pleased to be able to reassure you that actual performance during the first two quarters of the 2000/2001 financial year is considerably below the plan figure in the Service and Financial Framework. Quarter One showed delayed discharges running at 8.9%, whilst in Quarter Two this number fell to 4.6%."
  Anyone looking at the original figure, however, would have thought that Lancashire had a problem. It clearly did not have a problem, and I knew that.
  As well as writing to the health authority, I wrote to Lancashire county council's social services department and to Blackpool social services. They both wrote back to say that they did not have a problem, and that they were working well with the health authority and with the hospital. They commented, however, that the picture behind the delays that did occur was not a simple one. The reasons for delayed discharges included non-availability of a specialist service at a particular time—for example, assessments or continuing therapy from
  536
  health staff such as occupational therapists, who are employed by the health authority in Lancashire, or physiotherapists. In some instances, delayed discharges were also caused by a place not being immediately available in a patient's choice of residential or nursing home.
  An analysis of the figures for delayed discharges shows that about 50 per cent. of them were due to a patient's choice of residential or nursing home not having a vacancy. I say that in the context of there not being a problem of availability of nursing home and care home beds in Lancashire; we have an over-provision. Patients are therefore waiting in hospital until a vacancy arises in their preferred home. That raises concerns for me about the choice directive. What will happen to patients in hospital who are saying, "I am ready to move, but I want to go to that home down the road, and no other." How will the choice directive be applied? How will that bed become unblocked? How will the person be moved? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address the issue of consultation with patients and carers in this context. For example, if an individual had to make an interim move, they should be fully consulted and offered a reassurance that, should a vacancy arise in the home of their choice, they would be considered for it.
  I carried out my inquiries a year ago, so I thought that I should also look at some more up-to-date figures to find out what is happening now. I contacted Blackpool primary care trust to find out the current position. Of the 163 delays recorded between 5 August and 17 November 2002, only 16–9.8 per cent.—were attributable to social services departments. If those delays attributable to patient or carer choice are removed from the statistics, the actual figure falls to 5.5 per cent. So social services cannot be blamed for the number of delayed discharges. The blame—if blame can be ascribed—lies either with the health authority or with the patients and their carers. In Lancashire last week, there were 27 cases of delayed discharge. Of those, 17 people were awaiting practical or other arrangements beyond the control of Lancashire social services. Those 17 people included five who were awaiting arrangements to be made by families, and, for three others, discharge from hospital was imminent at the time that the statistics were being collected. I am concerned, therefore, that social services are being blamed for this situation when, certainly in my own locality, they are not to blame.
  Exciting initiatives are being introduced locally. Lancashire social services, for example, has introduced a new scheme involving named social workers. One of the problems is that it can be difficult to manage and link the social work team in the hospital, which does the discharge assessment as part of the multi-disciplinary team, with social workers in the community. So Lancashire has introduced a system in which, if someone known to social services goes into hospital, a named social worker who knows that individual and knows their care needs follows them through the hospital process and arranges their discharge into the community—an excellent initiative that could, and should, be replicated elsewhere.
  I recognise, however, that not every part of the country is as fortunate as the Fylde coast. We have not only excellent collaboration between social services and

  537
  the health service but some very good health service units, including two new NHS rehabilitation units at Rossall in Fleetwood and Kincraig in Blackpool. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), opened the Kincraig unit, and he will have seen the excellent work that the health staff do to help to rehabilitate elderly people and to provide the interim care to ensure that they can safely be discharged from hospital and settled in the community.
  When I speak to some of my hon. Friends, however, they tell me that the situation is not the same elsewhere. I want to make one supportive comment to my hon. Friend the Minister. I understand the importance of standardising some of the procedures, learning from good practice and ensuring that examples of good practice in discharge procedures are replicated around the country, but I ask her to allow time for that good practice to be developed. I also urge her to defer the introduction of fines, which will be counter-productive in this context and will undermine the good practice that I have seen and that I would like to see developed elsewhere.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I recall that, only recently, we lost the chief executive of Addenbrooke's NHS trust in my constituency to the Blackpool NHS trust—our loss is her gain. No doubt if she discusses the matter with him, he will describe circumstances in South Cambridgeshire regarding the availability of nursing and care home places very distinct from those that she described on the Fylde coast.
  None the less, some of the arguments continue to apply, and they speak of the necessity for the Government not to attempt to construct a theoretical national argument, but to consider practical issues as they affect localities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) so eloquently spelled out, they must not address issues by attacking one point in the system instead of understanding the whole system.
  Essentially, I have four points to make. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to from the Front Bench, is about partnerships and it has been echoed across the House. In 1997–98, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I, as members of the Health Committee, considered the relationships between health and social services. We could see then the necessity of taking down the Berlin wall between the two and of building partnerships. That began to happen, particularly over winter pressures, and it has extended to become more effective. Although it has become much more effective in my constituency, the Bill is designed not only to recreate that Berlin wall, but to give those on one side of the wall the ammunition to fire at those on the other. That is wholly misplaced and the Government should simply consider the response of the social services directors, the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and all those who gave evidence
  538
  to the Health Committee. It will become obvious that those who are managing such partnerships do not regard the proposal as at all helpful in that process.
  Secondly, on the question of uniformity, I want to make a distinctive point that I have not heard set out in detail. We might bandy around national figures on the loss of care home places, but, in practice, that loss occurs for different reasons and to a different extent in different parts of the country. The Government are fond of saying—indeed, I have heard the Prime Minister say it—that places such as South Cambridgeshire are losing some nursing and care home places because of the rise in property prices. If there is a rise in property prices that is leading to such a loss, it is happening in South Cambridgeshire as much as anywhere else in the country.
  However, we are also losing nursing home places in South Cambridgeshire because they are being converted, for example, to provide mental health places, as more money can be earned from those. We are losing availability in nursing and care home places because of the change in care standards. I shall not rerun that argument from a previous Session, but it has had an impact and it has driven care home providers out of business. It would not have done so if Cambridgeshire's authority had been in a position to provide the fees necessary to meet their costs, but, as things stand, Cambridgeshire cannot meet those costs.
  Cambridgeshire cannot even compete with authorities such as Hertfordshire. They receive the area cost adjustment, which is meant to reflect the additional cost of providing services in their area, but, in practice, those costs are exactly the same. If anything, they are, in some respects, less than those around Cambridge. Hertfordshire's response to its problems is to buy care home places in Cambridgeshire, which crowds out that possibility for Cambridgeshire social services.
  In parenthesis, I am struck by how the Government are trying to rectify some difficulties associated with social services funding. Going back three or four years, they were, for political reasons, badging money as NHS money, which then had to be given to a health authority or an NHS trust to buy nursing and care home places and bail out a social services department that could not solve the problem. That is still happening in Cambridgeshire.
  The Government have given us £2.3 million and the implication, of course, is that it can immediately purchase additional capacity. However, anybody who looks at markets will recognise that, as is true around Cambridgeshire, additional capacity simply cannot be bought if the price is below the cost of providing the service. Who will come into such a market and offer such a service?
  So, £2 million of the £2.3 million provided has enabled Cambridgeshire to raise fees and to maintain provision rather than see it decline. The money has not added capacity so much as sustained it, even at current levels. If the Government are serious about building capacity, they must think hard about how much money is required to enable that to happen in parts of the country such as Cambridgeshire. Judging from what I have seen, I am not sure that £100 million is sufficient to make a substantial difference in building capacity in all those places across the country where the fees being paid are below the cost of provision.

  539
  If the Government are to go down that path, they must think hard about differentiating between impacts across the country. I shall not stand here and say that no local authorities are failing to meet their responsibilities. Some will be failing. Equally, however, others are performing well within the resources available to them. They are spending more than the social services standard spending assessment—that applies to almost all of them, including Cambridgeshire—and they are performing well in terms of the provision of home care packages.
  The problems of delayed discharge involve, pre-eminently, the availability of care home places and, to an extent, the exercise of patient choice. In such circumstances, it is iniquitous to impose on an authority such as Cambridgeshire an additional fine that will drive the service further and further down.
  My third point is that there is an alternative. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, we need a more integrated system with incentives rather than penalties, which is what Cambridgeshire is setting out to achieve. A discharge planning team is being established, which will integrate health and social services and be managed by the primary care trust.
  I like to think that we can be constructive whenever possible, so I point out that an option for the Government is to take out of the hands of the social services departments alone the question whether patients should be discharged to care homes. That should be put in the hands of a discharge planning team that is independent of social services to the extent that it can buy the place and pass the cost to the local authority if one is available. That would take from any given local authority the excuse that it cannot find a place when, in reality, one is available. Of course, that would follow evaluation.
  As I said to the Secretary of State, I am worried that a consequence of the proposal will be the undermining of patient choice. In particular, and as the Health Committee heard from Essex, local authorities are required to make urgent placements and interim placements that are far from the choice of the patients and even not necessarily what is clinically best for them.
  Patients will be damaged. I have seen that, especially when those with Alzheimer's or dementia are moved from one place to another. The physical process of transferring such patients from one set of circumstances to another and from one environment to another can do immense damage. I recall that, in some cases, patients who were moved from a ward to a nursing or care home died. The home was of perfectly good quality, but it was not in the patient's interest to be transferred.
  There is an alternative, and it involves providing some independence so that a local authority that is failing to deliver on its tasks cannot escape any financial responsibility for meeting patients' needs. If a team is working on those matters and if the NHS trust concerned and the PCT are part of that team, they have an incentive to ensure that patients are not taking up beds when they should be out of hospital. Those bodies can push, through the discharge planning team, for the transfer of patients.
  On adding to perverse incentives, due to Cambridgeshire's circumstances and the nature of my area, we know that many care home providers, good as
  540
  they are and as much as they want to work with local authorities, will raise their fees if they think that my social services department will lose money—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: We heard from the Secretary of State that the Bill's basic aim is to prevent delayed discharges from acute hospital beds. As we know, that affects older people in particular. Other Members produced, in effect, a regurgitation of the professional whinges and excuses for not doing anything to tackle the problem—notably the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who for some reason managed to make a 25-minute speech although he is only a Back Bencher like me. I cannot remember when we decided that there were two Opposition Front Benches.
  We are all worried about people being kept in hospital longer than necessary. No one wants to be trapped in hospital when they do not need to be there, and that applies especially to elderly people. It is well known that the vast majority of older people prefer to be in their own homes. That was demonstrated to me very clearly earlier this year, when my mother needed emergency surgery. After the operation all she wanted to do was go home, even when she was still in the intensive care unit. The care she received in hospital was first-rate, but she wanted to go home nevertheless. I am glad to say that as soon as she was able to leave she was discharged.
  My family and I remain very grateful to all the staff involved in my mother's operation and after-care at the Doncaster and Bassetlaw hospital. Had she lived in a different area, things might well have been different, as we know from some of the stories we have heard today. In Doncaster, however, social services, the primary care trusts and the Doncaster and Bassetlaw trusts operate robust arrangements to ensure that they work together to reduce delays. It is an excellent example of collaboration and co-operation between health and social care services, providing support and care for patients who do not need to be in hospital for medical reasons. Patients who require time and care to recover from illness or surgery may need intermediate care, with intensive rehabilitation support, before going home or into sheltered or residential accommodation. Some may need round-the-clock nursing care in a nursing home.
  Most people want to be able to stay in their own homes, as I have said. Health and social services have crisis intervention teams to prevent the need for admission to hospital, or to ease patients back into their homes. In many cases involving elective surgery, they start considering what needs to be done after patients come out of hospital before the patients have been admitted. That is where some authorities go wrong.
  Joint agency panels allocate residential places for those who can no longer stay at home. The overall approach is to ensure that as many of my constituents as possible are given the right health and social care support, when they need it. The key is joint working and partnership throughout the caring organisations, and commitment to securing the best for local people. There is also a joint equipment store, and occupational

  541
  therapists—of whom we have heard much today—employed by the NHS can assess and order equipment without the need for social services to agree to the ordering of each item, which means that delays are minimal. The provision in the Bill on liability for delayed discharge payments will certainly concentrate the minds of those who have not already started working together to reduce delays significantly.
  For authorities such as Doncaster that have put considerable effort and resources into reducing delays, targets must not be seen to be unfair, and should take into account work already done. It would be perverse to set targets that are too high for those that have already started to act, while allowing those that have done nothing to benefit.
  According to the House of Commons Library, the rate of delayed discharge in England as a whole is about 9.5 per cent. The rate in Northern and Yorkshire region is 6.5 per cent. Doncaster's average is only about 2.4 per cent. The worst rate this year peaked at 4 per cent. in September, probably owing to the actions of local private care homes, and fell to 1.9 per cent. in October.
  All this demonstrates that where there is a will there is a way. Reducing delays have meant commitment across all services at the highest level, and proactive joint working has resulted in better outcomes for older people.
  I do not agree with the British Medical Association and some Members that the plans for charging will seriously damage relations between the NHS and local authorities. Where we have the type of joint working that I have described, there should be no need for the charges. Of course, if some turn their faces against it, the BMA and Members may well have a point.
  There are other ways of helping to reduce delayed discharge. In a recent report on the subject, the Health Committee rightly observed that telecare and telehealth systems had an increasing role to play in a modern health service, enabling people to stay in their own homes for longer. Tunstall, a locally based company seems to be at the cutting edge. For many years it has been providing telecare systems for a number of local authorities, giving a cover for 1.5 million older people throughout the country. Not only do such systems help older people to remain independent, but safe and secure in their own homes; the company is moving ahead, pioneering technology that can help to prevent hospital admission in the first place by monitoring vulnerable people at home. Following discharge the systems can monitor patients while they are at home, where they want to be. Blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, electrocardiograms, temperature and breathing rates can be monitored from centres, or even by a nurse on duty in the hospital ward. The benefits are obvious, and local authorities must start considering them.
  The Bill's overriding intention is to get people out of hospital when they do not need to be there. It may well be, as the Select Committee said, a blunt instrument, but it tackles a problem that needs to be sorted out. Perhaps some need a blunt instrument to concentrate their minds-none more than the professional whingers Members have mentioned today.
  542
  The victims of this situation are older people, who deserve better than being stuck—trapped—in hospital unnecessarily. The victims are also those in pain who wait for a hospital bed that is blocked because no one thought about after-care before they were admitted or while they were having treatment. The Bill should put an end to local empire protection and professional elitism, and finally kill the syndrome in which everyone thinks someone else is dealing with a problem when in fact no one is doing a thing. I look forward to joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby to support the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should explain that spokesmen for the second largest Opposition party are exempted from the time limit.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: You will doubtless forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being drawn into any further comment on your ruling, which I know to be the case.
  It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I hope that, at the end of my speech, he will let me know whether he considers me one of the "professional whingers" to whom he referred at some length.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is one already.
  Mr. Waterson: Well, there you go.
  We all know when there is an intractable problem, because names and definitions keep changing. The phrase "bed blocking" used to be used, but I am told that that is no longer very politically correct. Then "bed blocking" became "delayed discharges," and now it is rather grandly called, "delayed transfers of care." Whatever it is called, it affects about 5,000 patients every day of each week of the year.
  In my own constituency, as in many other parts of the country, there used to be great concern about so-called winter pressures and the associated problems. However, one of this Government's achievements—if that is the right word—is the creation of an all-year-round problem, at least in Eastbourne. They have created not only a list to get into my local hospital, but a list to get out, which reached an absolute peak of 149 blocked beds in June this year. So concerned am I about the issue that I have sought regular updates on that figure for a year or more. Although it has tended to fluctuate, until recently it has tended to fluctuate upwards.
  What have this Government done? Typically, they have panicked, tabling a measure that will introduce the law of unintended consequences in spades. The proposal does not have a friend in the world, apart from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who seems to think that everybody else in the world is wrong and he is right. It would be difficult to point to any group, body or organisation involved in the consultation that considered the proposals a good idea—nor am I sure that the Swedes would accept fatherhood. Apart from the hon. Gentleman, nobody thinks it the right thing to

  543
  do, and nobody thinks that it will work. We have heard from Labour Back-Bench Members, and we have heard other excellent contributions from Conservative Members. Basically, the Government are introducing a bed tax to get themselves out of this problem.
  I turn to the likely effect in my own area of East Sussex, and in Eastbourne in particular. The irony is that the Government are introducing the proposals in a great rush at precisely the moment when places such as Eastbourne are beginning to see the fruits of a working partnership between the health service and social services authorities. In recent times, since Conservatives took control of the county council, there have been some major steps forward in social services. Conservatives took over a waiting list of 800 people who were assessed for social services care, but who under the previous regime were not getting it. That waiting list has gone—all those people have been dealt with.
  The county council, in partnership with East Sussex Hospitals NHS trust, has actually over-achieved its bed-blocking targets. As the trust said to me in a letter of only yesterday:
  "The SSD Delayed Transfers PIP target has been overachieved so far to try and provide a buffer zone to assist with winter planning".
  The letter continues:
  "It is pleasing to see that the total number of Delayed Transfers of Care has reduced from the peak that it reached in June of 149 to the present level of 62."
  Mr. Dawson: Say thank you.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Say thank you," but no thanks are due to this legislation, which will actually set the two organisations at each other's throats instead of enabling them to continue to work in close partnership.
  We have already heard how the number of delayed discharges, although still too high, has fallen as a result of partnership working. Mr. David Archibald, the director of social services, wrote to me saying that
  "the level of cross-charging could be as high as £2.5m."
  He points out that this sum
  "would have to come from existing budgets to older people. This sum equates to 240 residential or nursing placements, or 800 home care packages."
  As if that were not bad enough, as we all know, social services nationally are grossly underfunded—to the tune of at least £1 billion. That figure, or rather more, is the amount by which local authorities—the great majority of them—overspend their standard spending assessment.
  We in East Sussex are told that the 6 per cent. increase over the next three years will be guaranteed, but that leaves aside the massive impact of the Government's proposal—already touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—to change the basis of local authority funding. In East Sussex, that could mean £44 million being taken straight out of the county council's budget in a worst-case scenario. Such a cut equates to the scrapping of nearly 2,500 elderly people's care. All this talk of a 6 per cent. increase is complete hokum, because of the massive effect—it is the financial equivalent of falling off a cliff—of such a cut in funding for authorities in the south-east such as mine.
  544
  There is also the question of the supply of suitable beds. For eight years, our county council was run—if that is not too ambitious a word—by the Liberal Democrats. Year after year, they paid the lowest rates per week to the private sector. No wonder so many homes have closed. As we have heard, some 66,000 care places nationally have gone since this Government came to power. To make matters worse, they insisted on keeping open wholly inadequate, county council run facilities that cost a great deal more than those in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will remember responding to such debates when he was a Minister responsible for these issues. We have witnessed a run-down in basic provision. Where are these places to come from?
  There is another, fundamental issue—the question of choice—that the Minister needs to deal with in her winding-up speech. Age Concern is extremely worried about this issue. It has drawn attention to standard 2 of the national service framework for older people, which states:
  "NHS and social care services [should] treat older people as individuals and enable them to make choices about their own care."
  However, as has been pointed out several times by Members on both sides of the House, the reality is that elderly people, who are often confused and very unwell, will become a kind of commodity. They will become counters on a vast Monopoly board, being shoved backwards and forwards between authorities, with the prospect of the imposition of heavy fines if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Older people and their families deserve some say in where they are cared for and on what basis. Potentially, this ludicrous legislation carries a vast human cost. We have heard the concerns about emergency readmissions, which have already reached a record high. I suspect that they are bound to increase, as old people are shoved out of the door of their local hospital under the pressure of the Bill.
  As Age Concern said in its letter to me, the Bill's penalties and provisions
  "take no account (and indeed make no mention) of the rights of older people".
  For that reason, and for the others that I have set out, it is clear that in a place such as East Sussex, the Bill's effects can only be destructive—not just of the choices and needs of the older people who we all profess to be looking after, but of the so far quite successful partnership between social services and the health authorities.
  In another letter, the director of social services said that, of the current cases, 59 per cent.
  "resulted from difficulty in making nursing and residential placements due to capacity issues in the market place."
  It is no earthly good the Government trying to make water run uphill—that is one of the Bill's effects—if the places are simply not available for the people whom we are trying to help.
  5.19 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I welcome this debate and the Government's determination to tackle what is, after all, a very difficult problem. On any given day, 5,000 people are awaiting discharge that has been delayed for one reason or another—a problem which is

  545
  having a significant detrimental effect on acute sector NHS care, and which, like road congestion, has finally reached the point at which something must be done.
  Why are we in this situation, and what can be done about it? I have been in the health service for a long time. When I started out as a junior houseman, we worked in big Victorian hospitals with huge numbers of beds. Patients would be admitted through casualty, moved to a medical ward and then, if they were old enough, transferred to a geriatric ward or, if they showed any signs of mental instability, to a psychogeriatric ward, where they remained until the grim reaper decided that it was time to come and remove them, long after everyone else had forgotten where they were.
  That unsatisfactory situation carried on for a long time. Now we have changed the regime completely, with modern hospitals providing high-tech treatment, and therefore much shorter stays. That works well, but it means a significant increase in throughput, with people who have received their high-tech care being quickly transferred elsewhere. It also means that many patients are discharged from hospital at an earlier stage of recovery, so it is essential that the facilities are there in the community or in their home for care to continue outside the hospital.
  There is also now a much greater determination among patients to remain in their own homes as long as possible and to be transferred home after treatment as quickly as possible. Fortunately, there are now better facilities in the community to allow that to happen. When I was a junior doctor, it was difficult to set up care packages in people's homes.
  The situation is strained in Dartford. According to a paper that I received just this morning from the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust, there are currently 47 patients awaiting transfer, which constitutes about 12 per cent. of the hospital capacity, which is only just over 400. The trust says that there are enough care beds in the locality to deal with the local population, but because of the proximity of London a third of the beds are taken by patients from London whose authorities have much higher funding levels available for such care.
  Recent changes in the inspection of care homes mean that older people with mental health problems are becoming more difficult to place. The ability of some patients to fund their care independently—they take up about a third of the available stock—also puts pressures on the beds available to social services. Six of the 14 nursing homes in the area are BUPA homes and charge more than the social service contract price, so top-ups are needed.
  Patients with mental health care needs constitute a particular problem. Of the 47 patients awaiting transfer of care, 40 per cent. are waiting for EMI—elderly mentally infirm—places, which also puts great strain on the system.
  Mr. Gale: As a Kent Member, I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He rightly highlighted the fact that inner-London boroughs are buying beds in Kent and blocking beds that are needed
  546
  by Kent social services to move people out of Kent hospitals. Will he ask the Minister to tell us how the Bill will even begin to address that problem?
  Dr. Stoate: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is not quite the problem that I was talking about. I will come to that shortly when I refer to a constituency case.
  The paper I received this morning points out that there are alternatives to nursing home care, and I am pleased to see that the acute trust is using much more sheltered accommodation with joint social services and health care team support. A community dementia team has been set up to allow people to receive care in their own homes, and that is certainly easing some of the pressure. The trust is working very hard indeed to make such alternatives available.
  I want to talk about a constituent who was seen this morning by two of my constituency workers. He is quite a difficult case and his story highlights some of the problems. He has a rapidly evolving dementia and severe Parkinson's. I have a letter from his GP saying that he needs an EMI bed, but social services has said that it will not pay for EMI care but will pay only for nursing care and has put pressure on the GP to redesignate him accordingly. The GP has written to me in outrage, which is why I undertook to raise the case in the House.
  Social services is prepared to pay £450 a week for my constituent's care, but not the £560 required for an EMI home—there is a place available—so he has now been languishing for many months in a bed in a community care NHS unit, quite inappropriately, as he does not want to be there, his family do not want him there and the NHS clearly does not want him there. For want of a top-up of £110 a week, he is occupying a bed in an NHS facility where his condition cannot be properly treated. As his condition deteriorates and his mental health care needs become ever greater, it is increasingly obvious to those caring for him that there is a problem.
  The Bill will at least make discussions of such cases more realistic. They will take place more frequently, and we can hope for more appropriate care packages for different types of patients. However, if we introduce the reimbursement scheme by April 2003, it could cause problems and create pressure. What does the Minister think about that? Despite recent funding increases—£300 million earmarked for partnership in care last year—social services departments are still having problems with the effects of historical underfunding, so we need a period of pump priming to ensure that the capacity is in place before they face penalties. That will give them time to identify the services that they need to provide. For the proposals to work properly, we must have sufficient nursing home care beds, community facilities and home care packages in place.
  We should not forget that early discharge is also a problem. If we ensure that hospitals are not put under pressure to send patients home or on to other facilities before they are fully ready, we will reduce the risk of the merry-go-round of patients being readmitted. We must ensure that step-down facilities are in place. I am pleased that a facility will be completed in Dartford and Gravesham by 2004 providing 60 step-down intermediate community beds, which will take enormous pressure off the social services and health departments. I would like to see such projects rolled out across the country.

  547
  We need a clear incentive for health care and social care services to work together to unblock delayed discharges, which are causing great misery for many of our constituents. At least the Government's proposals will get things moving, but they must recognise that procedures must be in place to allow the situation to improve before draconian penalties are imposed on already overstretched services.
  The proposals will contribute greatly to improvements in care, provided that they are implemented in a way that allows social services to build up capacity in a measured way to unblock the problem.
  5.28 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who does not think that elderly people should get the best possible care and a streamlined service so that they are not kept in inappropriate conditions. The issue is whether the Bill will help to achieve that. I am surprised that it has been introduced at all. On 2 July, the Minister and I served on a Standing Committee distributing grants to social services departments across the country, in order to allow them to implement measures to reduce bed blocking or delayed discharge. On the face of it, three-star local authorities were being given rather more leeway and were allowed to spend the money as they liked. Authorities with one, two or no stars had to provide detailed proposals and to spend the money on reducing delayed discharge caused by bed blocking.
  As I said at the time, the problem is that one-star local authorities sometimes have very good delayed discharged figures. In Stockport, where I used to be chair of social services, the health authority and social services did excellent work to prevent bed blocking. A parliamentary answer to question 43988 made it clear that Stockport's delayed discharge figure was already good.
  Stockport is a one-star authority with a good record in that area. I noted that the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority—which covers the three-star boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster—had a 9.8 per cent. delayed discharge rate in the same period. That is five and a half times the Stockport rate. I asked at the time how authorities with other problems could spend on anything that they liked apart from delayed discharge work, whereas the place that had prioritised the issue that the Government claim to want to support was made to go through the hoops.
  I suspected that there were other anomalies to be found, but the Minister at the time did not answer the question. Less than five months ago, it was all right to allow social services departments with three stars to spend the money as they wished, even though their delayed discharge figures were comparatively high, but now the Secretary of State has apparently changed his mind. How come? Have not the extra grant payments worked? Does the Minister know? Has there been any monitoring? Why has the Secretary of State changed his mind since July?
  The Secretary of State said that the needs of the older person always came first. They did not appear to do so in July. The Bill has aroused almost universal condemnation. It uses coercion just when local authorities and health authorities are beginning to adopt best practice. It is likely to worsen and not improve the situation for patients.
  548
  Various hon. Members have mentioned Age Concern's worries. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) quoted that organisation's view that the proposals were "ill conceived and impractical". Age Concern says that the Bill makes no reference to older people's rights, and it is especially worried about matters to do with consent and advocacy. It has stated that the proposals
  "do not treat older people as active participants in the provision of caring services, because they take no account (and indeed make no mention) of the rights of older people—for example, the Bill does not mention the need for consent of the patient at all stages of the process of discharge, or of the appeal rights of patients in relation to disputes between the NHS and the local authority."
  The Bill is likely to damage existing beneficial arrangements developing between health departments and social care departments. Age Concern was also worried about premature discharge and noted:
  "Concentrating on delayed discharge and imposing penalties for this one aspect will not nurture the joint working (between health and social care providers) that is happening at the moment, and could lead to premature discharge and inappropriate placement decisions."
  Age Concern was also worried that the proposals would put even greater pressure on families than exists already.
  The Royal College of Nursing's observations have been mentioned by various hon. Members. The RCN made it clear that it was keen to support efforts to improve discharge planning, but that
  "a system that penalises one part of the care sector could threaten or diminish partnership working."
  The RCN said that fines would lead to the further stigmatisation of older people as "problems", and added that even the timing of consultant ward rounds could lead to delayed discharge. It also said—and I believe that this is very important—that nurses, who are very highly trained these days, should be given the authority in appropriate circumstances to arrange and allow discharge.
  Mention has also been made of Carers UK, which is concerned that core discharge procedures are likely to get worse. It stated that
  "from 1999 to 2001, readmissions of the patient within two months of being discharged nearly doubled from 19 per cent. to 43 per cent."
  Therefore, when the emphasis is put on delayed and premature discharge, readmissions go up. It added that
  "the proportion of carers who felt early discharge was at fault rose correspondingly from 23 per cent. in 1999 to 45 per cent."
  Carers UK also said that
  "77 per cent. of carers said that they were not given a choice about taking on caring responsibilities."
  Carers are not being consulted. Carers UK said that
  "the proportion of carers being consulted fell from 1998 to 2001 so that nearly four out of 10 carers were not consulted."
  That is during this Government's time in office. Carers UK also said that
  "the proportion of carers who said their views and ideas were not taken into account rose from 36 per cent. in 1998 to 45 per cent. in 2001—nearly half of all carers providing substantial care … Only half of the carers were told about the sorts of care that would be needed upon discharge … 43 per cent. of carers said they were not given sufficient help on return home."

  549
  The truth is that there is insufficient capacity in the community. That problem is felt not just in my constituency but right across the country. We can do all that we can to return people home, but if the care assistants and workers—and especially the trained ones—do not exist to meet their needs, the circumstances of those people will not improve. The Bill, with its half-baked and counter-productive measures, will not solve that problem.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Calton: Wait for it, I have a minute left. The NHS Confederation has also made it clear that positive incentives have an important role to play. It believes that fining could undermine existing local partnerships. It is also worried about administrative costs. Where is the money going to go? How will it be redistributed?
  As many hon. Members have said, the start date of April 2003 is too early. The Government are going to wait until 2003 to find out the results achieved by the money that has been spent this year. They should wait at least until then, and then give notice of how they intend to act.
  5.38 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: A great deal has been said already and I shall not go over it, save to note that the concern in my constituency about how we deal with community care and ensure that the resources are there when they are needed has not changed in the 15 years for which I have been a Member of this House.
  One thing that has changed is that the underfunding that may exist now is nowhere near as great as in the years of the previous Conservative Government. However, we must make sure that the legislative time available to the House—and the additional funding made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is used to the best effect. We must make sure that the provision is there when constituents need it.
  In that respect, I question whether so much time and energy should be devoted to the Bill just now. I accept that sometimes one needs to wield a bit of a stick to make people do what is needed, but the carrot-and-stick approach is also needed.
  Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that the extra money that is provided for care in the community is enough? I would be a lot happier debating the Bill if we knew what the local government settlement would he and what extra money would be given to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent social services. I accept that we have had an additional 6 per cent., which we would never have had under the Conservative Government, but we need to ensure that we are getting the extra money that will allow our social services to do what we expect them to do.
  Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Walley: I am sorry, I do not have time.
  550
  On bed blocking, as of this week, there are 48 people on delayed discharge in the North Staffordshire royal infirmary. If those people were not in those beds, that acute hospital would have beds for people who are desperate to get the NHS service that they need. So I have no doubt that the Government are right in making sure that we do not spend money on highly specialised services in our acute hospitals for people who no longer need that expert specialist medical treatment. We must put all our energies into finding a solution to get those people back from hospital into their home and the community, back into intermediate care or even into the long-stay beds provided by the Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, which, itself, has patients who cannot be discharged because of the lack of appropriate community facilities.
  A constituent of mine has written to me consistently over 15 years imploring me to make sure that the Government do what is needed regarding dementia services. I have spent a great deal of time making the case to Staffordshire county council that it should give money or land to Claybourne, a specialist place for people with dementia, which is run admirably by Methodist Homes for the Aged. It is of great concern to me that hardly any of my constituents can be placed in Claybourne now that the land has been acquired and this wonderful facility has been built, open and even extended. Not as many as my constituents who should go there can go because the local social services cannot afford the cost of moving them. That means that although people in other parts of the country where social services have additional money can go to Claybourne, my constituents cannot. That is a source of genuine concern.
  Let us by all means have a Bill that will penalise local authorities that do not comply with the standard required, but let us make sure that there are minimum standards of service. Wheelchairs should be provided to the community where they are needed. Let us make sure that we have occupational therapists. Let us make sure that people are not being kept in hospital for want £20 for a handrail. I accept that we have to ensure that social services should be fulfilling those functions but in reality that is still not happening. I would rather look at ways of postponing the Bill until such time as we can do a proper audit and be certain that what should be happening is indeed happening.
  We hear a lot about the need for modernisation, and I embrace that. The Edwards report on north Staffordshire has led to the award of extra money to oversee extra resources for care in the community and to deal with the need to transfer that funding from its traditional target of long-stay beds to care in the community. However, the implementation of the Edwards report is still not subject to full accountability. Until we have that, I feel that we cannot simply depend on a piece of legislation that will penalise and fine. If my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that the Bill will not only impose such disciplines, but ensure that the local social services are properly funded, able to respond to changes and accountable, perhaps we can look forward to making sure that our elderly people are not left at the mercy of a system in which they are sent from pillar to post and do not get the services that they need.
  5.45 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Labour Front Bench is struggling somewhat for support, even from its own Back Benchers. Far be it from me to offer any comfort, but may I point out that in February this year I introduced a ten-minute Bill? I wanted to call it the bed block Bill because I thought it sounded rather catchy. Unfortunately, the private Bills office had other ideas and it was downgraded to the Waiting Time for Discharge from Hospital Bill, which did not convey quite the meaning that I wanted. As is the way with ten-minute Bills, it ran into the sand, but in April, Ministers and Mr. Wanless appeared to be thinking along somewhat similar lines and subsequently produced the Bill before us.
  I would not like to be considered a professional whinger, in the words of the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and although I would like to be fairly positive about some of the ideas that the Government are putting forward, I will explain why I think that the devil is in the detail, why the measure is doomed to fail and why it will not be attracting my support.
  I note that the Government have consulted very widely on the Bill, which is good, and have had 270 responses. The Department of Health tells us that there was a wide spectrum of responses but did not say that there was much in the way of support for the measure from those 270 respondees. It would be interesting to hear in the winding-up speech who, among those 270, were positive about the measure. The soundings that I have taken in my constituency have been uniformly hostile.
  There has been some recent improvement in the bed-blocking figures, and we need to give due credit to all who have worked hard to achieve that, but problems remain and winter is upon us. A London consultant recently told me that patients in his ward regularly have to spend the night on a mattress on the floor. That is a damning indictment of our health service in the 21st century. Those of us with first-hand experience as patients know full well that being on a hospital ward is an unsettling experience, whether or not we have a bed. For elderly or vulnerable people, that would be a gross understatement, and the experience would not be therapeutic.
  We also know that the longer people are in hospital, the greater their chance of succumbing to hospital-acquired illness. Long stays mean unnecessary medicalisation of people's problems and the demotivation of valuable NHS staff. It is a classic lose-lose situation.
  Despite the small measures to resolve the imbalance between the social services and the NHS announced today, I believe that there is a deficit between the two sectors. That is historic and I believe that we should be supporting what might be described as the less ritzy part of care. Traditionally we support those medical specialties that produce obliging targets and outputs. They focus strongly on cardiology and surgery in general, when we should perhaps be looking more closely at areas of care that could arguably produce more in terms of health care and outcome for people for every pound spent. To that extent, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he is
  552
  transferring £100 million from the NHS to social services. It will be interesting to see whether that funding is sustained when the Bill comes into effect.
  Much of the devil in the detail to which I referred is contained in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill. I was left rather puzzled as to what qualified as a qualifying hospital under the definitions in the Bill. I am not entirely sure whether Ministers know either. For example, I have previously asked Ministers what they mean by "intermediate care" because they are often less precise than they should be. I am certainly confused about what it means in the Bill. Will an elderly person in a community hospital who is under the care of a consultant be a qualifying patient in a qualifying hospital for the purposes of the legislation?
  Although there is little mention of primary care trusts, community hospitals and GPs in the Bill, the explanatory notes on clause 4 come close to that in the reference to care of an "interim nature" pending fuller social services assessment. That worries me as it could mean that a patient is discharged before a fully comprehensive package is in place. A fully comprehensive package involves primary care and I am amazed that a community care Bill can so obviously neglect primary care trusts.
  Cross-charging rates are to be set by regulation. The consultation document suggested £100 a day except in London and the south-east, where the rate will be £120. That is a substantial differential and it implies that social care in the south-west is substantially less expensive than it is in the south-east. As I represent a Wiltshire constituency where we constantly make comparisons with the largesse that is heaped across the border on Hampshire, I shall be interested in any evidence that the Minister can provide to back up the assertion that social care in Wiltshire is less expensive than it is in Hampshire.
  The measure's most obvious perverse incentive hardly needs restating. As a GP, I should he far more inclined to seek admission to an acute unit if I thought that it was the best, or only, way to obtain the social care that my patient needed. That would both encourage bed blocking and make it difficult for people who were not admitted to hospital—they would be for ever at the bottom of the pile.
  A more subtle perversity occurs to me, as it may have done to other hon. Members: the relative disadvantage that would be introduced for emergency surgical and medical patients compared with those whose admission is anticipated in advance. Those potentially disadvantaged patients tend to be older and frailer than those considered well enough for elective surgery. Those who are less well would thus be disadvantaged by the Bill, because those who are well enough for elective surgery would, by definition, be relatively fit. I should be grateful if the Minister could consider that point.
  Clause 2 restates Ministers' obsession with cold surgery. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that Opposition Members had an obsession with the acute sector, which seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. There is no doubt that Ministers are obsessed with cold surgery—patients undergoing elective procedures. Such patients can expect their package to be arranged well in advance of those admitted as emergencies, yet it is arguable that prompt

  553
  reintroduction into the community may be of greater benefit to those who have recovered or are recovering from an acute illness, not least if they are older. I am concerned about the paradox that the least well will be disadvantaged.
  Readmission rates are rising, and hasty discharge may be one of the causes. However, it is a fallacy to suppose that that is the province of one sector or another. It is not only the shortcomings of hospitals that cause increases in readmission rates. The problems lie also in primary care and social care, so fining hospitals is plain daft. Furthermore, health care staff will resent the implication that their actions should be dictated by the possibility that their hospital might be fined.
  The regulatory impact assessment glosses over the burden that the measure is likely to place on carers—either by design or default. We must recognise that social service providers lean heavily on informal carers. Without them, our system would crumble.
  There are several cracks in the RIA. The major costs in our health care system are up front, so if capacity is increased, as the Bill is presumably designed to do, which is welcome, there will be a great increase in costs as more surgical operations are carried out. There is no indication that Ministers have fully grasped that point. I shall be interested in their comments on the greater upfront costs that will undoubtedly result from the Bill.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Truswell: Before I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in the Labour Back-Bench naughty corner by incurring the wrath of my equally hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I want to say two things. First, no one doubts the commitment of the Government Front-Bench team to addressing this often difficult and deep-seated problem. Secondly, the Government's record on investment in the NHS and social services knocks that of their predecessor into a cocked hat.
  The current situation is not, as Opposition Members try to suggest, the fault of the Labour Government. The roots of the problem go back not a few years but at least a decade. Opposition Members show their customary collective amnesia. Their hand-wringing makes me think that they must belong to the Uriah Heep appreciation society.
  I shall remind the House of the background. In the late 1980s and in the 1990s, the Conservative Government's mantra was clear: public provision bad, private provision good. We all remember how funding was skewed so that people going into independent sector accommodation commanded more resources from the then Department of Health and Social Security than those going into local authority homes. We all remember the explosion in the number of private sector residential and nursing homes. We all remember the massive loss of care beds in the NHS and the closure of local authority homes, or their transfer to trusts, voluntary sector organisations or similar creative arrangements.
  Of course that could not be sustained, so when the resources originally vested in the DHSS were transferred to cash-strapped local authorities, which
  554
  were then systematically starved of cash—unless they happened to be Westminster or Wandsworth—the die was cast. The Labour Government inherited a major problem and it has developed into a crisis.
  As a solution, however, the Bill is at best premature and at worst could destabilise the care system for older people, as some Members have already pointed out. There are several key points in the case against the Bill and I base them on my observations over many years as a councillor, a chair of social services, an MP and someone whose parents will undoubtedly require care in the near future.
  The issue of choice has been referred to over and over again. Older people, or their friends, relatives or advocates, want a place in a particular home and they are reluctant to leave hospital until it is secure.
  There are funding problems. Leeds spends over £18 million more than its standard spending assessment on social services, a situation that is unlikely to change as a result of the local government finance review. The authority has not been able to pay nursing homes as much as they say they need to stay in business. About 200 beds have been lost during the past couple of years. However, following an independent report commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Leeds has increased payments by about 10 per cent. or more, which will, hopefully, check that loss of beds. Only time will tell. The 6 per cent. growth in real terms plus any further funding from the Government will not achieve an immediate improvement in that long-term funding problem. It cannot instantly ensure that a build-up to appropriate levels of community care services is achieved.
  Other Members have referred to key issues such as the recruitment of specialist staff and said that blame is shared equally among various agencies. I am not sure that blame is the right word, although we seem to have used it a lot in the debate. The Bill is premature and unhelpful.
  Capacity has been affected by the fact that some homes have closed because owners—often with an eye to shareholders—have chosen to realise a capital asset for housing or other uses.
  My fear is that, as many hon. Members have rightly said, the Bill will lead older people to be pressured, albeit subtly, to leave hospital prematurely. They may have to undergo unnecessary extra moves between hospital and their eventual place of residence. For some people, those additional moves will require the commissioning of step-down facilities in the independent sector. In Leeds, as in so many other places, there is already little surplus capacity in nursing homes, and further use of spare capacity for step-down or interim placements may exacerbate the situation.
  Leeds is trying to resolve the issue by creating the spare capacity in hospital wards that would then be transferred to a primary care trust. That capacity would not be designated as acute and, I hope, not counted against the measurements that would fall foul of the Bill. In the longer run, that resource could be decommissioned as better alternative community-based facilities were created, but that needs time, and the Bill is premature and unhelpful in that respect as well.

  555
  The Association of Directors of Social Services has understandably expressed concern that some independent sector providers may seek to take advantage of the pressure on social services departments imposed by the Bill to increase charges.
  The penalty payments will, I understand, go to the hospital trust. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to ring-fence that money for older people's services. The resources available for the care of older people will be absorbed into the general acute sector, thereby reversing a trend that everyone is trying to achieve. At the very least, if the Bill comes into effect, the Minister should consider ensuring that any penalties go to the PCTs, so that they can be recycled into the care of older people.
  As other hon. Members have said, hospitals may accelerate discharge procedures to put pressure on social services or reap the benefits of the Bill. Many hospital trusts—Leeds is no exception—run considerable deficits, and there is a danger that they will take advantage of any possible income flows and view them as very welcome news. Any use of interim step-down facilities will require proper medical cover and GPs may be reluctant to take on such work. I am not aware that any guidance or funding has been offered to PCTs to cover that issue.
  In Leeds, there is a very good working partnership—other hon. Members have referred to similar circumstances—and a will to ensure that patients are not detained unnecessarily in hospital. Delayed discharges run at about 2 to 4 per cent. per annum, mostly because of considerations involving choice, and I understand that that percentage compares favourably with national figures. That percentage represents 50 to 75 older people.
  There is a huge problem, and it needs big answers. The Government are already beginning to provide those answers through the extra funding that they have made available, but I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that we are at our best when we are at our boldest, because those words were no doubt uttered by George Armstrong Custer immediately before the battle of the Little Bighorn. I cannot help but fear that the Bill—well intentioned though it is—represents perhaps the wrong battle in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  6.3 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I start from the same premise as most hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon: the Government are trying to tackle the problem of delayed discharges, which is exactly the right problem to tackle when we consider not only the financial implications but the quality of life of those elderly people towards the end of their days who are losing a few of their precious days in hospital. However, I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who did not mince their words. It gives me a great deal of pleasure also not to mince my words: this is the wrong Bill doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, and one cannot get away from that.
  The regulatory impact assessment, which all hon. Members have probably seen, states that there are really only two options: do nothing, or introduce a
  556
  reimbursement scheme. The most obvious solution of all—looking at the whole system—has been missed, but the Health Committee has done the work on that. I should like to make four points. I think that they all come from the Health Committee report; I do not think that I have included any of my own.
  The first and most important point is to avoid inappropriate admissions. The latest figures show that about one in seven patients do not need to be admitted to hospital, and there are already ways to avoid that. Many places have multi-agency response teams—MARS teams—that GPs can call out to patients' homes to work out alternative methods of coping with them other than sending them to hospital.
  One of my daughters is a nurse-consultant in intermediate care. Her job is to go into the casualty department and medical assessment unit of a very large hospital to sort out patients' care at home, if possible.
  I must, of course, refer to hospital reconfigurations. I am delighted to hear that a Government paper is coming out, recognising that reconfigurations that take assessment centres away from the local population have to be reconsidered.
  The second crucial point from the Health Committee report is that a named person should be responsible for co-ordination of all stages of the patient's journey right from the moment of admission—before then in the case of elective admissions—and up to and beyond discharge. My PCT has a discharge co-ordinator who goes round all the hospitals that the trust uses. In addition to such co-ordinators, named people who are responsible for each patient would make a huge difference.
  The third point, which has been made already, is that it is absolutely crucial to consult patients and carers. They must be involved, not just as an afterthought, but right at the beginning. If discharge planning starts early, a logical conclusion can be reached. Is step-down care needed? If so, is it available? Can the patient get home? Are adaptations and other aids needed? Such planning has to start at the beginning.
  In their response to the Health Committee report, the Government agreed with most of those points, but then seemed to put them all on the back burner. They said several times that they would introduce the system of reimbursement, but, as I have said, that focuses entirely on the wrong end of the process.
  I congratulate the Government on revising the hospital discharge workbook, and I hope that the new one will come very soon and that it will produce a radical overhaul of the whole process of hospital discharge. I welcome the change agent team and the Modernisation Agency. A lot of good things are going on, but this approach is completely wrong.
  In his introductory remarks, the Secretary of State said that partnerships were the key, and several speakers have said exactly the same. I cannot see how the Government can argue that the proposal improves partnerships. It sets one side of the equation against the other. One can blame the other, and thus avoid paying. The Secretary of State says that £100 million can go from the NHS back to social services to make up for the fine, which proves to me that he has suddenly realised that the proposal is mad.

  557
  I will conclude my remarks, as I know that many other Members wish to speak. The Bill is wrong and should he thrown out. Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I have been counting speeches, and I think that the score is about 12–3. I wish that the Bill, which should be in the interest of patients throughout the country but not in the interest of political parties, could have been subjected to a free vote or decided on the number of speeches rather than a whipped vote, which, I fear, will automatically see it through.
  6.10 pm
  Andy Burnham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). I do not know whether the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is still keeping score, but I can tell both Members that I am about to pull a goal back. My speech will not be without observations of my own, having worked on the Health Committee report and taken a great interest in it.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was high on conjecture and hypothetical situations but, other than what seems to be the Conservatives' policy of pumping money into care homes, contained no solutions to the issue of delayed discharges or bridging the divide between health and social services. If keeping care home places open is their overriding priority, they are sadly mistaken. That is no policy.
  Conservative Front Benchers are not alone in not having answers on this subject. I worked briefly in the NHS, and I lost track of the number of seminars and workshops that I attended on bridging the divide between health and social services. Many good ideas and examples of good practice were discussed, but good practice only produces incremental change. There are huge problems in this area, however, which the system has failed to put right. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the need to concentrate minds, which is absolutely right. The system is not currently working for patients and families. I do not have all the answers, but the system needs to be made to work better and more quickly for those people than it does at present.
  Opposition Members seem to be defending the current system. They seem to be saying that everything is fine as it is, but it is not good enough. We need to address that. Attacking these proposals should not be used as an excuse for saying that nothing should be done. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire referred to stress and tense situations in hospital, which are hallmarks of the current system. That is doing no good to patients or families.
  In all the discussion about structures and processes, it is easy to lose sight of some of the purposes of the Bill. There are probably two clear objectives. One is to give elderly people in particular more appropriate treatment when they need it, to get them through the system and to get them back home, which is the important point. The second is to free up hospital beds so that more patients can be treated across the NHS. That problem has
  558
  bedevilled the NHS, and we must get better at bearing down on blocked bed days, as they are called. Five thousand beds are currently blocked at any one time.
  Laura Moffatt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite all the good practice and all the hard work of many social services and acute trusts, when my acute trust began this work a year ago we had 70 delayed transfers of care and that this week we have 70 delayed transfers of care?
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When minds are focused on this problem, and people start to bear down on the bureaucratic process that exists, it is amazing how the system can be made to work better. We should all bear that in mind.
  As I said, the report found that there are 5,000 blocked bed days at any one time. It is important for hon. Members to consider the evidence that the Department gave as to why those beds are currently blocked: 22.2 per cent. are awaiting an assessment of care needs; 21.9 per cent. are awaiting a funding package to be agreed; 20.4 per cent. are awaiting a care home placement; 11.5 per cent. are awaiting further NHS care; and 6.7 per cent. are awaiting a domiciliary package of adaptations and equipment. Nobody can tell me, based on those figures, that there are not areas in which we can start to reduce delays in the system. Why are 22.2 per cent. waiting for an assessment of care needs? There must be things that can be done to bear down on that.
  The report also mentioned our visit to the United States, to which, I think, my hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred. On the United States system, the report clearly states:
  "We were left in no doubt that this system"
  of financial incentives
  "was very effective in reducing hospital stays."
  We visited a health maintenance organisation called Tufts Health Plan, which told us something extraordinary. The day its patients go into hospital for a planned admission, the builders move into their homes to adapt them so that they can leave hospital as soon as their care is complete. None of our constituents would recognise that experience. It is an example of good planning. There is no reason why it could not be done here, but our system does not place pressure on people to make them think that they have to do that good planning and deliver better services.
  There are two reasons why the United States system works. The first is that the financial incentives are part of the process. They move people through the system and out of hospital quickly. The Bill tries to replicate part of that in our system. The second reason is that there is one budget and therefore only one person deciding how to get someone home as quickly as possible. On that matter, I bow to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. In some ways, I am under his spell on the Committee. The Government should give careful consideration to a single budget as a way of getting people through the system more quickly. That is the ideal. It cuts away the possibility of squabbles about who is responsible or where the fault lies. We are more likely to get people through the system quickly with one budget and one objective than with a system of financial incentives or penalties.

  559
  It will be a shame if the Bill halts the move towards single budgets in health and social services departments. I do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Dawson: I do not disagree entirely with my hon. Friend, but structural change is not the whole answer. Wherever there is a structure, there is a boundary, and other functions would be left out of a joint health and social care body. Surely it is our systems and values that are important. We must aim for the ultimate principle, which is to wrap services around the people.
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. People are the most important consideration. They do not mind whether the health department or the social services department provides their care. They do not care about the divides, which we have to break down. I favour a move to single pooled budgets. Having said that, the proposed system is the fall-back option. If people do not go down the collaborative route, another system has to be in place that will work for patients. It might be one or the other, but I hope that the Government will not rule out the good examples of joint working.
  I echo what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said about the readiness of the system to cope with the proposed changes. My local authority is a member of the special interest group of municipal authorities. We vehemently argue that we have been underfunded for years, especially in social services. One symptom of that is a severe lack of occupational therapists, which other hon. Members have mentioned. The health service and the local authority in Wigan employs occupational therapists, but the health service often takes them from the local authority, which struggles to keep them. I gather that there is a national shortage of occupational therapists and that there are 5,000 training places every year. The Government have to consider that problem if we are to achieve the ideal of getting people back home as quickly as possible.
  The system is not able to adapt homes quickly enough. There is a 10 to 13 month wait in Wigan for an assessment for a stair lift. There are many former miners and people who suffer from industrial disease in my constituency. That is a hell of a wait for a home to be made adequate. That person could easily pitch up at hospital again before the changes are made.
  Finally, will the Government consider the range of services and appropriate accommodation available in the community? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, I believe that the choices available to people are not good enough, and my great hope is that the Bill will diminish the reliance on institutional care, in both residential and nursing settings. For people who are stuck in hospital for too long and who become institutionalised, hospital care becomes a pathway to residential care when, if they had been expedited through the system, that option may not have been the most suitable.
  I should like to echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North: why cannot we use social services resources to put better equipment in people's homes? When the Select Committee visited West Yorkshire, we saw people doing self-testing at home and sending their results to remote centres to identify any emerging health problems that may require
  560
  hospital admission. We should consider how we can concentrate resources on the point of entry to the system, rather than always thinking about how to cope with people when they need care. We should concentrate on getting to the point at which people do not need care, or, if they do, on ensuring that it is much later in life. If this system can keep people out of hospital in the first place, it can only be welcomed.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I wholeheartedly agree with the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and, yes, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
  Thank goodness I do not have to stand up and make fawning speeches about the Government, so I can wholeheartedly say that this is a lousy Bill from an absolutely rotten Government. They should be ashamed that they are introducing it in the House. Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Health Committee, and I challenged him about consultants' contracts. I asked him whether he would take on the consultants and said that, if so, he must be mad. After a lot of waffle, which we also heard in his speech this afternoon, he said that he would not, and I judged him to be sane. I am now reconsidering.
  These will be dark days for the Labour party and the Government. The economy is on the slide, and the Government will need all the friends that they can get. Having listened carefully to all the speeches today, I think that they are rapidly running out of friends among Back Benchers. The Bill is the ultimate case of buck passing, and, as we have heard, no one is in favour of it. There is a long list of people who have condemned the Bill.
  What Member would say that it is terrific to have people stuck in hospital beds when they should be returned to their own home or admitted to a residential home? Of course Members of Parliament think that it is shocking. Who wants to stay in a hospital and catch MRSA? Every Member wants to do something about bed blocking, but the Government do not seem to understand that this ridiculous Bill, which they are trying to persuade the House to accept, will not solve the problem. In fact, it will make it much worse.
  In part 2, the Secretary of State has had the cheek to take powers to allow him to remove, in circumstances set out in regulations, the power of local authorities to charge for certain community care services. That will do huge damage to local authority budgets, and authorities throughout the country are already struggling to meet the demands on them.
  The Government should have listened to the Health Committee. We all know that, sadly, the House is not quite the force that it used to be, but Select Committees certainly provide a good means of challenging the Executive. Members of the Health Committee worked hard to prepare the report. We made 37 recommendations, and went to America and Canada. If the Government had listened to our recommendations, they would not be in a mess. For instance, we said:
  "There are real risks 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

  561
  between health and social care. We agree that appropriate incentives have a role to play, but we would also urge the development of positive incentives that reward good practice, rather than any precipitate and over-zealous emphasis on penalties."
  We went on:
  "We are concerned that the focus on tackling delayed discharges, entirely laudable in itself, could lead to an intensification of pressures to discharge patients too quickly, with inadequate preparation, and in situations that could intensify the demands on their carers. This has the potential to trigger a rise in readmission rates. Premature discharge leading to readmission is clearly stressful and in many cases harmful for the patient, and is also wasteful of resources. High levels of unplanned admission are likely to be a marker for poor practice."
  As another member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), said, the Government should have looked at our key eighth recommendation that a dedicated person look after the individual before they were admitted to hospital and while they were there. Afterwards, that person would make sure that they were given proper care and support.
  In my constituency, there is a huge number of elderly people. If you want to live longer, come to Southend, West. In February, a local resident will celebrate her 109th birthday. She lives in a bungalow on her own, and recently I had the privilege of having a cup of tea with her. She is truly remarkable, but many other people are admitted to hospital with no relatives or loved ones to support them. It is thus not just a question of dereliction of duty by social services.
  Will the Government look at the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 that I had the privilege of steering through the House? That measure would deal with bed blocking, as it tackles the important issue of fuel poverty. All hon. Members know that this winter a huge number of elderly people will be readmitted to hospital. Cold, damp homes are associated with premature mortality, physical and mental illness and impaired quality of life. They aggravate a wide range of medical conditions, increase suffering and make it harder to care for vulnerable people at home, thus adding to the burdens on the NHS. Those burdens are seen, as I have said, in growing waiting lists for admissions and bed blocking. No doubt, there will be another crisis this winter. National Energy Action believes that the Government should look carefully at recommendations that winter taskforces in primary care trusts should produce a local plan to deal with that problem, thus increasing awareness of the links between housing and health, identifying households at risk, and making referrals to fuel poverty programmes and good-quality energy advice.
  Next week, members of the Health Committee will visit Sweden and the Netherlands. Although we are looking at sexual health, I have decided that I shall make it my business to find out how the Swedish model is working. According to one director of social services, the introduction of a programme of penalties in Sweden resulted in a two-year build-up, after which time all the accommodation was made available. It is crazy and disastrous that residential and nursing homes throughout the country are closing because of the onerous duties placed upon them by the Care Standards Act 2000.
  This is a rotten Bill and I plead with the Government at the eleventh hour to drop it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am not sure whether the Minister needs reminding of the saying that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. If one considers the majority of responses to the Bill, it is clear that it is an orphan. The overwhelming view of the Bill has been unfavourable, to say the least. That Labour stalwart, Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local Government Association, has urged Ministers to abandon the Bill. The NHS Confederation and the Association of Directors of Social Services have both condemned the proposals in the Bill. Age Concern has described the Bill as "ill-conceived and impractical".
  The British Medical Association has voiced its opposition. Help the Aged is opposed to the imposition of fines, and says that the Government should concentrate their efforts on securing the long-term future of social services. Kent county council, acting as a spokesperson for a group of county councils that will be adversely affected, called the proposals "gravely flawed".
  During the debate, speaker after speaker has condemned the proposals, particularly in part 1. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on an elegant and lucid speech in which he highlighted the fundamental flaws in the Government's approach, as outlined in part 1. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who presented a compelling argument about the impact that the Bill will have on partnerships. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) highlighted the problems in his constituency, the way in which the NHS and local authorities have been working closely together, and the damage that the Bill will do to that relationship. Those sentiments were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in a typically robust speech, left us in no doubt of his opposition to the Bill.
  It is not solely Conservative Members who are opposed to the Bill. I know that the House always listens carefully and with respect to the views of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Health Committee, who in the course of his comments made it plain that he was against part 1 and thought that it was wrong. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who, to be fair, said that she would not vote against the Bill, was critical of certain aspects of it, as was the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who urged the postponement of the fines. She was chairman of social services in Lancashire before coming to the House.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was lukewarm in her support. Some of the comments of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) may have been unpalatable to me, but the thrust of his powerful message was that the Government had got it wrong in part 1. Looking round the Chamber during the speech of the Secretary of State, it was interesting to see a number of other hon. Members expressing their support through their body language and their sedentary comments. I caution them about being over-enthusiastic in support of the Bill.

  563
  I caution in particular the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). If I were her, I would check what her social services department thinks of the Bill. During the afternoon, my office had an opportunity to speak to the director of social services of Kirklees council who, among other things, made three comments on the Bill: first, that it is not the right way to tackle the problem; secondly, that it is totally wrong and not good for partnership work; and thirdly, that it will rebuild a Berlin wall between health and social services. I understand that hon. Members in the Kirklees local authority area are meeting the social services department tomorrow to discuss the implications of the Bill. The hon. Lady might be interested to hear the department's views in that meeting.
  Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am surprised but not alarmed about his telephone call, despite his office having said merely that it was from the House of Commons; the fact that it was his office had to be wheedled out of it. I called the department at 4.30 today, after his call had been made, and it said that it was perfectly happy with the Bill and that working relationships and partnerships were the way forward, and commended such arrangements to other authorities as the best way of making the Bill work.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful for that contribution, but I would be fascinated to know to whom the hon. Lady spoke in the social services department. If she spoke to the director of social services, Mr. Philip Cotterill, it would seem most extraordinary that his views on the Bill should have so radically changed in the course of a maximum of 90 minutes.
  The role of the Health Committee is very interesting. Many hon. Members have mentioned the report that was published in July, and it has been interesting to hear in the debate the hon. Members from the governing party who were members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) gave us the benefit of an interesting speech in which he reassured my hon. Friends that he was going to redress the balance by speaking in support of the Government's proposals after an overwhelming number of Labour MPs had spoken in opposition to them. He is perfectly entitled to take that position and I do not criticise him for doing so, but I wonder—I shall leave this in the air merely as a matter of wondering—how he squares the support that he expressed for the fining system set out in part 1 with recommendation 33 in the Committee's report. I remember the discussions that we had in formulating the report, so I wonder how he squares his undying support for what the Secretary of State is doing with two parts of that recommendation, which states:
  "There are real risks that perverse incentives"—
  that is, fines—
  "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 recommendation goes on to state:
  "we would also urge the development of positive incentives"—
  as opposed to fines—
  "that reward good practice, rather than any precipitate and overzealous emphasis on penalties."
  564
  Again, that is very different from what the Government are now recommending.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, because there is not much time.
  The greatest flaw in the legislation is that, ironically, it will not achieve the aims that it seeks to promote. Simplistically to believe that the panacea for solving problems of delayed discharge is fining social services departments demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the problem.
  Most reasonable people would endorse the policy intention and goal of delivering improvements to the system to ensure better, more timely and safe discharge from hospital, but to hijack the Swedish system, completely misunderstand it and simply produce a negative policy of imposing fines on social services departments is a missed opportunity. I tell the Secretary of State that that approach is ultimately bound to fail. It is beyond argument that for vulnerable people, and older people in particular, to remain in hospital longer than necessary is potentially a danger to health and is grossly unfair and an utter waste of NHS resources, but to pray in aid the Swedish system without understanding the differences and the fact that it is now having to be amended to pick up on the unintended problems that it has created is not the best way to proceed.
  The Government have failed to accept the inherent crisis in care for the elderly. Without redressing the problem of the loss of 60,000 beds, the closure of 2,000 homes and the decrease in the number of households that receive domiciliary care by almost 100,000, delayed discharge cannot be tackled satisfactorily.
  The burden of prospective fines is hanging over social services departments like the sword of Damocles. It is an ominous and current threat. Regardless of the success of individual departments in reaching their specific targets for reducing delayed discharge, fines are to be distributed with zest. There has been much speculation recently about the financial burden that the fines will place on local authorities. Many authorities have expressed their grave anxiety about the detrimental effect of fines on them from next year.
  The Liberal Democrats, the arbiters of financial prudence since the Chancellor finally divorced Prudence, claim that the estimated national cost is £50 million. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) kindly explained in an intervention that he had concocted those figures on the back of an envelope. Although it grieves me to tell him, their sums are wrong. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who use a piece of paper and the back of a cigarette packet with a clipboard thrown in to calculate a combination or two of figures before announcing a figure that they believe to be newsworthy, I have spent my time more scientifically and productively. In the past week, I have canvassed as many local authorities with social services departments as possible.
  The figures that I was given are significantly higher than those that the hon. Gentleman produced at the beginning of the week. London alone estimates a penalty figure of approximately £25 million. That is in line with the figures that the hon. Member for Ealing,

  565
  North (Mr. Pound) provided during the debate on the Queen's Speech when he opposed the proposals and claimed that they would cost Ealing, North about £2.2 million.
  Let us consider the shire counties. Their estimates were £2 million for Buckinghamshire; £6 million to £7 million for Surrey; £1.5 million for Cambridgeshire; £3.9 million for my county of Essex; £2.5 million for East Sussex; and £8 million to £10 million for Hampshire.
  In order not to leave anyone out, I also spoke to social services departments in the Health Ministers' constituencies. In case they do not already know, I shall enlighten them about the way in which the proposals will affect them. Worcestershire, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), believes that the financial burden will be approximately £1.8 million. The local authority of the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) estimates it at £2.74 million. The local authority of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) believes that the cost will be around £1 million, and the local authority of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) estimates the financial burden as between £500,000 and £750,000.
  While I enlighten Ministers about the way in which their perverse proposals will affect their areas, it would be unfair if I did not draw attention to the financial burden that the proposals will place on the local authority that covers the Prime Minister's constituency. It has been estimated as approximately £1.4 million.
  Just over half the local authorities that I managed to speak to reckoned that the financial burden would be £76 million. Let us project that upwards to the total: the Local Government Association figures estimate a cost of about £180 million, which also highlights the impact statement figures. That is probably about right. What does that mean? The Secretary of State suggests that he will rob Peter to pay Paul and shift £100 million from the Department of Health to the Department for Work and Pensions. That is ludicrous.
  The policy should be abandoned before it does more damage. More help should be given to try to remove positively the problem of delayed discharge rather than introducing some crackpot and punitive scheme that almost nobody likes except the most diehard new Labour stalwarts. It is absolutely crazy and it will cause grave problems for the working and further development of partnerships. It will also do nothing to deal with the problems of admissions and readmissions to hospitals. It will distort operational priorities, create pressure for premature discharges, and discourage social service co-operation with care planning procedures in hospital settings.
  For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby tonight to vote an emphatic no to a policy and a Bill that are woolly and wrong-headed and that are bound, in the end, to fail, but not before they have done tremendous damage to what has been achieved in the working partnerships between health and social services.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We have had a good debate today. I certainly welcome the constructive suggestions made by some hon. Members about what more we can do to ensure that our older people get the right care at the right time and in the right place. Unfortunately, however, I cannot say the same about the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) failed noticeably to focus on the needs of older people, had no practical suggestions for improvement, and seemed to see their sole role as the champions of local government. I have to say that that is a bit rich, coming from the people who brought us the poll tax, rate-capping and a stream of central controls on local councils, but who now feign to believe in freedoms for local government.
  Let us return to the real issue in the Bill. The existing system means that 5,000 people are currently stuck in hospital when they would be better served outside. This Government's investments in community alternatives and better working between social services and health have made all the difference. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in a strident contribution, said that all hon. Members wanted to tackle delayed discharge, but when his party left government, delayed discharges stood at around 6,985. By September 2002, that figure had been reduced by more than one third. That is because social services have been able to build up alternatives to hospital, more care homes have been commissioned, and there are higher fees, more home care provision, and more community equipment.
  The way that we have achieved this, through ring-fenced funding and top-down central monitoring, is not sustainable. Extra money has gone to areas in which the problem is worst, rewarding failure with extra resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, we now need a system that rewards success. Throughout the NHS, we will build systems to ensure that money flows through ward activity to ensure faster, better-quality care. The Bill will enable us to do that across the health and social services divide.
  I was a little disappointed by the suggestion that no one supported the Bill, and a bit surprised at the approach of the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). The hon. Member for Westbury actually introduced a ten-minute Bill earlier this year which he said would facilitate a model based on the Swedish approach to delayed discharge, which he termed a "hugely successful innovation". I do not know whether it is because he has ambitions that he has subsequently changed his mind, but it is very disappointing none the less.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) expressed concerns about responsibility in relation to delayed discharge. There are two elements to

  567
  this question. First, I want to reassure hon. Members that the Bill states clearly, in clause 4(4)(b), that a charge would be due only if
  "it has not been possible to discharge the patient because, and only because, the local authority has not made available for the patient a community care service which it decided under section 3(3)(b)"—
  that is the assessment—
  "to make available for him".
  [Interruption.] For those hon. Members who clearly have not read the Bill, let me explain what that means. It means that if someone is a self-funder, or is waiting for an element of NHS care, and that is the reason for the discharge being delayed, the social services department will not be charged. That is fair and reasonable.
  The second element, however, is that several people—and, I am afraid, some local authorities—are trying to argue themselves out of responsibilities that rightly lie with social services departments, such as assessing needs and commissioning or providing adequate alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) rightly challenged the hon. Member for Woodspring on whether his argument is that local authorities should not meet their responsibilities. That is what it appeared to be. The Bill will not impose extra responsibilities on local government, but we expect local government to shoulder those responsibilities for vulnerable older people that it already has.
  Unlike the Conservatives, we have recognised our responsibility as a Government to fund the necessary developments. It has been claimed throughout the debate that there is not enough capacity in the care home sector for the Bill to work. There are clearly capacity issues in parts of the country, which is why our spending review made available resources for an increase in care home places. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 14 November,
  "we will … have a problem if we think that the only way of caring for older people is placing them in … care homes."—[Official Report, 14 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 178.]
  That is not how the majority of people want to be cared for. Most want to be able to return to their own homes, which is why we are providing the funding for local authorities to increase capacity across services for older people.
  Once again today, we heard calls for more money from Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, and the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), whose authorities received from the building care capacity grant £7.5 million, £3.2 million and £3.8 million respectively. Of course, they refused to vote for all that money when they were given the opportunity.
  The Bill will provide the incentive for local authorities to use that funding to produce a range of services—not only care home packages, but interim and intermediate care involving the provision outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), such as step-down facilities, extra sheltered housing, home adaptation services and different home care packages. Only through the provision of such a range of services will older people get the choices they deserve in relation to the care that they receive.
  568
  The important point is that there is a difference between how authorities, including those that face the same pressures, handle their responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North pointed out, using the approach that I have outlined, a difference is being made to the lives of people in Doncaster, North. For example, Croydon—part of the south-east that also faces pressures—has made a significant difference in respect of delayed discharges. The Bill will ensure that local authorities take responsibility, with the additional resources, for making the differences that will allow older people to get out of hospital when they need to.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) outlined the particular constraint around staff and occupational therapists in particular, so I am sure he is pleased that, under this Government, there has been a 36 per cent. increase in occupational therapists in training. He is right: part of the capacity constraint is to ensure that we have the work force in place.
  Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), concentrated on choice, among other things. Some have argued that the Bill will lead to patients having less choice regarding the services that they receive on discharge and that they will be pressured by local authorities to accept the first available placement. I believe that the opposite is true: the proposals will put the patient firmly at the centre of care and they should increase the choice available to older people. As we know from our experience with the building capacity grant, those councils that have achieved progress on delayed discharge have invested the money innovatively and in a range of services.
  The Bill will increase choice in other ways, such as that of staying at home rather than going into hospital in the first place. Preventing people from going into hospital when they could be better cared for with support in their own homes is a key way to reduce delays, and sensible councils will invest in services that enable older people to exercise that choice.
  Some Members raised the direction on choice, which exists to enable people to exercise choice when selecting a care home. The direction on choice does not mean that a patient has a right to occupy an acute bed indefinitely when others may be in much greater need. Even if someone is waiting for a place in the home of his or her choice to become available, that person should not be subjected to an inappropriate delay in an acute bed if he or she no longer requires acute hospital care, not least because that is not good for older people themselves. Councils need to invest in services such as step-down and interim care, or to provide intensive home care services so that patients can move to a more homely environment in the meantime.
  Some Members expressed concern about consent and advocacy. Let me reassure them that nothing in the Bill removes the current practice or law on consent and advocacy. Many areas have very good advocacy services, and are involved in discharge planning. There is no reason for that to change. In fact, the Government are ensuring that advocacy is available for patients throughout the health service.

  569
  Concerns have also been expressed about care, but I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with them. Several Members mentioned damage to partnership. Of course good working relationships exist in many areas, but partnership must be judged on the basis of what it produces. There must be more to the outcomes of partnership than simply a good set of minutes. If partnership is delivering, it will be the way in which to avoid reimbursement charges; but partnership depends on clarity about roles and responsibilities.
  Whatever the good intentions locally, the current system rewards buck-passing. An older person stuck in hospital is paid for by the hospital, even if that person is the responsibility of social services. We propose that the social services budget should pay for the older person's care when it becomes the responsibility of social services. Essentially, this will be a payment for looking after the patient.
  The Bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies. It will assist partnership. Most important, it will prevent older people from being caught in the middle of disputes.
  The Bill will ensure that the needs of the patient are put first, not the needs of the NHS or local government. Delayed discharges are bad for older people, worrying for their families and carers, frustrating for patients waiting for treatment and wasteful of taxpayers' money. Each older person trapped in hospital is an argument for change, and each is a demonstration that the current system is not working. As my right hon. Friend made clear, the mark of any civilised society is the way in which it treats its senior citizens. The mark of an effective health and social care system is that it ensures choice, access, independence and quality of care for our older people.
  The national service framework for older people is bringing health and social services together, and raising standards of care for older people. In July, my right hon. Friend announced a £1 billion package leading to faster assessment, more places in care homes and sheltered housing, more intermediate care services, and more support for older people wanting to live at home and their carers. Today we have responded to local government concerns about capacity by announcing that, in addition to the increases in social services funding, from next April we will transfer money from the NHS to enable social services departments to fulfil their responsibilities. This is a whole-system commitment to tackling delayed discharges.
  Not only has the extra funding been opposed by the Conservative party; today Conservative Members have also opposed the reforms to make it work. We know that the extra money we are providing for our health and social services brings with it a responsibility for us all—a responsibility to ensure that it makes a difference. The Bill ensures that services needed to promote independence will be provided free. It places new duties on the NHS to work with local authorities. It rewards social services departments that live up to their responsibilities. Most important, it puts the needs of vulnerable people, not organisations, at the centre of the system. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  570
  The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 238.

  Division No. 11]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Lidington, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Barker, Gregory

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Beith, rh A. J.

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Maclean, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brady, Graham

  Maples, John

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Brazier, Julian

  Mercer, Patrick

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Moss, Malcolm

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Burns, Simon

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnside, David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Burstow, Paul

  Ottaway, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Paterson, Owen

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Cash, William

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Chidgey, David

  Randall, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Clappison, James

  Rendel, David

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Collins, Tim

  M-Kent)

  Conway, Derek

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Curry, rh David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ruffley, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Selous, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Soames, Nicholas

  Westminster)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Steen, Anthony

  Francois, Mark

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Syms, Robert

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Grayling, Chris

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Gummer, rh John

  Trend, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Heath, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hendry, Charles

  Wilkinson, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Keetch, Paul

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Angela Watkinson

  571

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Rye)

  Allen, Graham

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Gardiner, Barry

  Darwen)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Gerrard, Neil

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Gilroy, Linda

  Austin, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bailey, Adrian

  Goggins, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Grogan, John

  Battle, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Beard, Nigel

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Benn, Hilary

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Berry, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Betts, Clive

  Hendrick, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Blizzard, Bob

  Heppell, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Heyes, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Burnham, Andy

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cairns, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Sefton E)

  Casale, Roger

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Caton, Martin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Challen, Colin

  Hutton, rh John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Clapham, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Chryston)

  Highgate)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cohen, Harry

  Hatfield)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Colman, Tony

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Crausby, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kidney, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lammy, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lepper, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Etherington, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Farrelly, Paul

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Follett, Barbara

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, rh Derek

  MacDougall, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  572

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Merron, Gillian

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Spellar, rh John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Squire, Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Bripn Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer Dr Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prescott, rh John

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Wills, Michael

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Bellshill)

  Baillieston)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Anniesland)

  Yarmouth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third Reading).
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 135.

  Division No. 12]

  [7:11 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Hilary

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bennett, Andrew

  Darwen)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Austin, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  573

  Burnham, Andy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Sefton E)

  Cairns, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Casale, Roger

  Hutton, rh John

  Caton, Martin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Illsley, Eric

  Challen, Colin

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Highgate)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Jenkins, Brian

  Chryston)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Clelland, David

  Hatfield)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Coleman, Iain

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Colman, Tony

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Kemp, Fraser

  Crausby, David

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cruddas, Jon

  Kidney, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Lammy, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lepper, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Linton, Martin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Farrelly, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  MacDonald, Calum

  Flint, Caroline

  MacDougall, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, rh Derek

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rye)

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hesford, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Heyes, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Perham, Linda

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Picking, Anne

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  574

  Plaskitt, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Soley, Clive

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Spellar, rh John

  E)

  Squire, Rachel

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prescott, rh John

  Stevenson, George

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Trickett, Jon

  Anniesland)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Kemptown)

  NW)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wills, Michael

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Baillieston)

  Short, rh Clare

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Yarmouth)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Finsbury)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Baldry, Tony

  Westminster)

  Barker, Gregory

  Forth, rh Eric

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Bellingham, Henry

  Francois, Mark

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grayling, Chris

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Greenway, John

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, rh John

  Burnside, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Burstow, Paul

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burt, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Heath, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Chidgey, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, rh David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  575

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Maclean, rh David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Randall, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Wilshire, David

  M-Kent)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Selous, Andrew

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

COMMUNITY CARE (DELAYED DISCHARGES ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill:

COMMUNITY CARE (DELAYED DISCHARGES ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th December.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Other proceedings
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 119.

  Division No. 13

  [7:23 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Allen, Graham

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Gilroy, Linda

  Darwen)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Goggins, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Austin, John

  Grogan, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Banks, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Barnes, Harry

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Battle, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Beard, Nigel

  Hendrick, Mark

  Benn, Hilary

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Heppell, John

  Berry, Roger

  Hesford, Stephen

  Betts, Clive

  Heyes, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Burden, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Burnham, Andy

  Sefton E)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cairns, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hutton, rh John

  Casale, Roger

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Caton, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Challen, Colin

  Highgate)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Chryston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hatfield)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Coleman, Iain

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Colman, Tony

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Crausby, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cruddas, Jon

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kidney, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Lammy, David

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lepper, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Farrelly, Paul

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  MacDonald, Calum

  Flint, Caroline

  MacDougall, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  McKechin, Ann

  &Rye)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  MacShane, Denis

  577

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Merron, Gillian

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Morgan, Julie

  Finsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Spellar, rh John

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Wills, Michael

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Woolas, Phil

  Anniesland)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  NW)

  Baillieston)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Rooney, Terry

  Yarmouth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Chester)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chidgey, David

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barker, Gregory

  Collins, Tim

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Conway, Derek

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Blunt, Crispin

  Evans, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Francois, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Burnett, John

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Burnside, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burt, Alistair

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Grayling, Chris

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Greenway, John

  Cash, William

  Grieve, Dominic

  578

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Ruffley, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Selous, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Maclean, rh David

  Trend, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Whittingdale, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Norman, Archie

  Willis, Phil

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wilshire, David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Paterson, Owen

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Randall, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

COMMUNITY CARE (DELAYED DISCHARGES ETC.) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other enactment.—[Charlotte Atkins].

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Housing Support Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That—

(1) the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 10th December at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and

(2) in respect of that sitting Standing Order No. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2)(b) of the word 'five' for the word 'ten'.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
Ordered,
That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Charlotte Atkins.]

PETITIONS

  Cliffe Airport
  7.34 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I am honoured to present a petition signed by thousands of local residents who are horrified at the prospect of an airport at Cliffe which would operate on a 24-hour basis.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of concerned residents of South East Essex and surrounding areas sheweth
  That the Government's proposed Cliffe Airport option appears, from the scant details so far revealed by the Government, to offer far more disadvantages than advantages to South East Essex; and that the Government has totally failed to consult fully the people of South East Essex on the question.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to rescind its Cliffe Airport option and undertake substantial, informed and open consultation in South East Essex.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

New Midlands Airport
7.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is the first petition that I have presented in my 10 years in the House. It is signed by 15,767 people in my constituency and elsewhere and reflects how distressed we are about the proposal to build an airport between Rugby and Coventry. It states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
The Humble Petition from the electors of Blaby, South Leicestershire and others of like disposition sheweth
That the proposals for a new airport between Coventry and Rugby would involve the destruction of precious unspoilt countryside, rural environment and wildlife; that the airport would be built on the floodplain of the River Avon, thereby increasing the risk of flooding and would be contrary to planning advice contained in PPG25; that the costs of constructing such a new airport and associated infrastructure would be excessive; that such a large development on a greenfield site would be contrary to stated Government policy; that any such airport would be less conveniently situated for passengers than existing airports; that the construction and operation of such an airport would increase congestion on already congested motorways; that the noise and associated pollution would seriously discomfort local residents; and that the need for a new airport has not been convincingly demonstrated.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Department for Transport to oppose any such proposals and to pursue instead the enlargement and improvement of existing airports.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Christchurch Road Post Office
7.37 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am honoured to present a petition from people living in the community served by the Christchurch road post office in Reading. They are unhappy that it closed on the retirement of the previous postmistress and that the Post Office has not followed the process set out in its urban reinvention programme to review need in the area. The petition has been signed by almost 3,000 people on the initiative of Councillor Riaz Chaudhri.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the Royal Mail work with local elected representatives, residents and shopkeepers on Christchurch Road to keep a post office open.
And the Petitioners remain.
To lie upon the Table.

Local Government Funding (Swindon)
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
7.38 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the opportunity to put Swindon's views on the review of local authority funding.
My constituents have made it clear that they want and value improved local government and police services. A key part of that relies on new investment. My constituency has the worst-funded unitary education authority and my constituents have called for a fair funding system. We welcomed the review because we thought that we were bound to gain from it. Unfortunately, it has emerged that virtually every authority thought it would gain.
Imagine, then, our disappointment when we found that although almost every other one of the 40 worst-funded education authorities with which we had campaigned looked to gain from at least some aspects of the new education formula, Swindon did not gain from any of the education options put forward. It is therefore no surprise that the review team and I have received a huge number of letters about the issue from teachers and parents in Swindon. Swindon has already received more education funding under this Labour Government—over £500 per pupil per year. However, teachers make it clear to me that extra funds are needed and would be well used to extend students' opportunities and to raise standards. Similarly, it is clear that we need more funds for social services.
On all funding methods I urge the Government to give more details on how changes will take place. They have said that no authority will get less grant next year, but it is not clear whether that is in real or cash terms. The Government have also promised that, as the new system is implemented, no authority's schools will lose out, so schools simply need clarification about the period of implementation. However, for other services, and authorities overall, including police authorities, the position needs to he clarified.
Given that the Government have allocated substantial resources to public services, they would give much reassurance to local authorities if they made it clear that, for police and local authorities, overall funding would be maintained in real terms for 2003–04, 2004–05 and as many more years as they felt able to make that promise. Authorities could at least plan on a level playing field, even if nominally they may lose out under the new formula. There should be no allowance for existing spending patterns, except as part of the process of implementing the new formulas. This is not a fair basis of funding. It is an allowance for existing spending and it will box in populations who have suffered under low-spending authorities and ensure that they remain in that position.
I turn now to specific issues on particular services. Swindon has the third worst education standards in the south-west; Bristol has the poorest standards and receives the most funding, well above the south-west average, which is logical. Swindon receives £34 per pupil below the average. The lower standards are not because we have worse schools; they reflect deprivation that has
582
not shown up in existing formulas or a lack of baseline funding to meet pupils' needs. I want the formula to be improved, not to take away from others but so that more future growth moneys support the lowest-funded authorities—where they are needed, as they are in Swindon.
Giving extra funds for additional education needs is sensible. One of the questions under consideration is whether the working families tax credit should be included as a measure of deprivation, or whether only income support should be included. There is a powerful case for including the working families tax credit, or its equivalent in the new post-April system. Employment is rising, but in many constituencies that means that families are moving from no pay to low-paid work, and that does not change the education opportunities or attainment of those children overnight. If we want to ensure that the education challenges faced by families with no pay or in low-paid work, the way forward must be to take into account data on the working families tax credit as well as on income support.
I would expect that to produce smoother changes in allocations, as the change in data for income support plus the working families tax credit is likely to be less dramatic than that for just income support. Smoother changes are a good policy goal. Whichever indicator of deprivation is chosen, the current threshold system fails the test of being easily understandable.
In terms of deprivation, Swindon is about 110th in the 150 authorities, so we are about the 40th least deprived authority. The threshold in education tries to create what Swindon wants—a fair base level of funding for many authorities. Under option 2, the threshold was seen as high, with a baseline set at the bottom 50 authorities. However, it is not clear whether the additional funds for education needs are given to the bottom 50 authorities or levelled up to the 50th least deprived authority. If we assume the former, whereas under the current formula Swindon's existing needs are recognised, under the new formula they are ignored and taken to be just the baseline, so Swindon would lose £2 million compared with our current grant. That cannot be justified—Swindon's results do not justify reduction. We are currently in the bottom 40 authorities. The new formula is not levelling up, but is levelling down further, which does not make sense. The additional funds are concentrated on the 100 most deprived authorities, leaving few funds to distribute along the baseline.
If Swindon is supposedly levelled up to get the resources of the 50th least deprived authority—a more deprived area—it is not right that that leaves Swindon with fewer resources than we have now. The threshold has to move up 105 authorities to be neutral for Swindon. Only then will a third of education authorities get extra help for special needs, and more resources will go into basic needs for all schools. That is difficult to justify—why does the extra support have to be concentrated on 50 authorities before the formula for Swindon is back where it started? Swindon is among the most poorly funded authorities, so it does not have a high basic level of funding. That alone shows how hard it is to follow the formula and suggests the need for a rethink.

583
Option 5 proposed by the F40 group is widely supported. Of the 55,000 responses to the consultation on the review, 53,000 were made as a result of the F40 group's campaign. That represents a magnificent response from parents and staff who are keen to see a higher base level of funding. I hope that the Government in turn can respond positively and adopt an option along the lines of the F40's proposal, which builds up a higher base cost for all schools.
Additional costs are inevitable in areas of high employment and housing shortages such as Swindon and must be acknowledged if there is to be sufficient recruitment and retention of staff. Head teachers have made it clear that they face pressures not experienced by their colleagues in other parts of the country when recruiting staff. Only yesterday a head teacher in one of the most deprived areas in Swindon told me that she had advertised a key post but received only three applications. The only suitable applicant came from abroad—she recruited that person, but unfortunately they did not stay at the school. That is just a small sign of the pressure we are under, and shows that we need extra resources to deal with our serious recruitment and retention problems. If the Government want to achieve equal opportunities for all students, those extra costs must be reflected in a new formula.
Most work on this problem is not in the review of education but in reviews of area cost adjustment. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that the existing system is unfair. Proposals in the review paper are a vast improvement on current arrangements. A change is much needed and can be justified by the detailed work in options 2 and 3. Option 2 suggests using the method recommended by the independent review of the additional costs allowance in 1996 and taking more detailed account of differences in the structure of labour markets in different authorities. Swindon is a good example, as our economy is widely recognised as being different from that of the wider economy in Wiltshire and the south-west. With the exception of London, it is hard to find a town or city with as many national and international headquarters, but the prosperity that that brings hides deprivation, which is hard to tackle in an area of high wage and housing costs. That should be picked up by the formula, as options 2 and 3 propose.
The arguments for options 3 and 5 are appealing, as private sector wages reflect the market, whereas public sector wages are fixed. If an area has a lot of public sector workers, the inclusion of the public sector will dampen the effect of wages, yet the pressure to find staff may be even greater in those areas. That applies as much to education as to other services, particularly social services. Although education rightly receives much of the limelight in the discussion of local government funding, the funding of social services is equally important. Many authorities, including Swindon, spend well over current Government assessments of funding, which indicates their huge needs. Swindon certainly faces huge pressures in social services for children, the elderly and people with mental health problems, all of which are essential in any civilised society.
I should like to get back to the days when a home help service was available. It did good preventive work, but we are a long way from having it. Again, I recognise that the Government have put more investment into social
584
services, but there is still a long way to go. Whichever proposal is chosen, the population basis should be the resident elderly population, plus those in residential care who are supported by the authority but live outside it. It does not seem right to exclude people who cost the authority a great deal of money. It is right that they should be supported, and if they are the responsibility of the local authority, they should be recognised in the formula.
On fire service funding, a radical approach is needed to remove the perverse incentive of the fire calls indicator, which has been discredited. We should be doing all we can to promote preventive work, and I am very proud of the work that Swindon and Wiltshire fire brigade does in that respect. That has often been at the forefront of preventive work across the country. The fourth option for the fire service gives an extra top-slice for fire safety education, and an extra sparsity top-slice, which is surely justified. That is the most attractive option if the Government genuinely want to prevent fires and deal with the difficult pension problem facing the service.
The second option, which makes only minimal changes, does not deal adequately with those issues. As the consultation has proved to be complex and painful, it is unlikely that Ministers and MPs will take part in such discussions every year, so any changes made now should be significant and substantial.
Many concerns have been raised in Wiltshire with regard to police funding, particularly the rural policing fund. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce last week that the rural policing fund would be preserved outside the formula. That is making an important difference in Wiltshire already and we want to see it retained.
Whereas education services funding looks to use working families tax credit and income support data, environmental services funding takes account of income support only. It would seem logical to use both sets of data across Government Departments. I know that the Government have responded by saying that many of these services are subsidised in the day, but I cannot think of many services in Swindon that are subsidised in the day. In the case of cultural services, the same issues of access and inclusiveness would apply to those on low pay as to those on no pay.
On population growth, I urge the Government to recognise that Swindon has been growing rapidly and it is a huge frustration to my constituents that the infrastructure does not keep up with that expansion. Formulae must take account of that. Swindon may be in a unique position, as we have effectively been a new town without being defined as a new town. We have been the fastest-growing town and services have not caught up with the expansion of population. The borough council planned for that as much as possible but, because of rate capping and other problems, it was not able to do as much as necessary. Outside the funding formula, perhaps the Minister will consider allowing more of Swindon's uniform business rate to be returned to the town for a defined period so that we could catch up with the investment needed. With our Government-backed urban regeneration company and new regional development agency structures, this may be a key time to deliver on that.

585
My constituents rely on local government services and appreciate the value of those services. They want the Government to adopt a new, fairer formula for funding local government services to reflect the differing needs and costs of services in different areas. I have highlighted some of the issues that the new formula should address. I emphasise three points: first, a review of the area cost adjustment is crucial to reflect the pressures that high-cost areas such as Swindon experience; secondly, the need for a higher basic funding level for education authorities; and thirdly, the need for major additional investment in social services.
7.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this debate. There is much competition between many hon. Members throughout the House for a debate on this issue. It is the mark of a dedicated and conscious Member of Parliament to argue in such detail about technical and funding matters that obviously affect all our constituents so significantly.
My hon. Friend has given me a very long list of issues to cover, so I shall press on and try my best to address some of them. Hon. Members will be aware that the Leader of the House confirmed earlier today that the announcements on these matters will have been made by this time next week, so we do not have long to wait. In the meantime, however, I can certainly reassure her that the points that she has been making have, along with all other responses, been taken into account in making the final decisions. This debate also follows the announcement made earlier this week about setting up a voluntary arrangement with Swindon borough council following a request from the authority for help in improving public services, which are facing difficulties in the area.
My hon. Friend is especially concerned about funding for schools. She registered her support for the proposals made by the F40 group. I assure her that I am well aware of the strength of feeling not only in Swindon, but elsewhere in the country, which the group has made plain. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has been able to meet a delegation of representatives. I know that there was a helpful exchange of views.
On the options in the education formula, it is worth reiterating that the considerable increases in funding for education that the spending review has provided over the next three years mean that we have been able to give the commitment that no authority's schools will lose out in real terms in moving to the new formula. We want a fairer, clearer system that is justified by the educational needs of children and based on the most up-to-date evidence of relative cost and need. Any formula will need an element for deprivation, known as additional educational needs, and an enhancement for areas where schools need to pay more to recruit and retain staff.
586
The F40 group has proposed a change to the formula, suggesting that money be taken out of the factor specified in the formula for deprivation and put into the basic allowance per pupil. That would have an impact on authorities with high levels of deprivation. In working out a new funding system, we need to consider how changes will affect all authorities, not only those in the F40 group. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have been considering all the responses very carefully, including those from the F40 authorities.
My hon. Friend mentioned some specific points that I shall try to address. In respect of how the education formula will treat issues relating to deprivation, the indicator that we choose is clearly very important. I appreciate that Swindon has some disadvantaged areas with residents in low-paid work. Among the proposals for the new funding formula are two options in which the main indicator for deprivation—the number of children of parents on income support—is supplemented by the number of children of parents in receipt of the working families tax credit. That option picks up children whose parents are in low-paid work and aims to reflect a wider definition of poverty. As I said, we will see the outcome very shortly.
On the complex question that my hon. Friend asked about the threshold for additional educational needs and how it works, the consultation options all use thresholds for assessing top-ups. For example, the threshold of 30 LEAs would give all authorities funding as if 13 per cent. of their pupils were deprived. If 15 per cent. of an authority's pupils are deprived, it would receive additional funding for the 2 per cent. of pupils above the threshold, but if that authority has a level of less than 13 per cent., it would receive funding as if it had a 13 per cent. level.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about the level of the threshold and how it might affect Swindon. Although the threshold is relatively easy to convey in a general sense, I can sympathise with her about the difficulty in assessing how the different threshold levels will affect individual authorities. In making decisions, we are considering the pros and cons of high and low-level thresholds for additional educational needs.
Let me deal with the way in which the current system reflects the extra costs through area cost adjustment. It takes account of the extra costs of recruiting and retaining staff in some areas, especially London and the south-east. The options in the consultation paper are based on evidence that suggests that authorities with significant deprivation and additional staff costs need to spend more to achieve the same results for their children. I accept that there is scope for judgment about the evidence, but the four options reflect that.
To make a wider point about the area cost adjustment, I note that my hon. Friend supports options ACA2 and ACA3, and that on balance she prefers options that are based only on wages in the private sector. Although we understand the rationale for using only private sector wages, there are arguments against doing that, notably the reality of lower wage flexibility in the public sector. We must weigh up those issues carefully.

587
My hon. Friend seeks assurance on several other formula issues. She mentioned the elderly personal social services formulae. There are two main choices. One option is to use the total resident population, which includes those in households and residential care. The alternative is to use the population in households plus the number of people in residential care that the authority supports. My hon. Friend was clear that she supports the latter. Both options include people in residential care, but the second approach recognises that authorities place people in care in other authorities. However, the matter is more complicated and it is difficult to go into great detail. We have been carefully considering the balance as we finalise decisions.
My hon. Friend also questioned the reason for including deprivation in police option 5. It has a separate deprivation factor, which was included in the consultation document to seek views on whether that would be an acceptable method of helping to implement the Government's agenda to help people out of deprivation.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the £30 million rural policing fund would continue next year. I appreciate that she spotted that the national policing plan, which the Home Secretary launched, will continue in its current form outside the funding formula.
My hon. Friend believes that working families tax credit data should be used in the block of services that is catchily entitled EPCS, or environmental, protective and cultural services, in addition to assessing deprivation based on benefits data.
Low wages are clearly an aspect of deprivation that is not well covered by benefits data, but is that the right indicator for EPCS? Is that set of services in as much need of deprivation weighting as, for example, education or social services? Decisions will be made, announced and explained next week, but we are all grappling with those questions.
Let us consider fixed costs for authorities. All authorities, whatever their size, must have specific functions, for example, a chief executive, a director of finance and so on. Those basics constitute bigger issues for small authorities. However, it is debatable whether much can be achieved through a fixed-cost element for larger authorities such as police authorities or fire authorities. Nevertheless, we are carefully considering all the arguments.
My hon. Friend mentioned population growth and the extent to which the formula should recognise it. We have received many comments on that. We understand the anxieties of rapid growth areas about their increasing population. The consultation paper contains an option of making a targeted grant that is top-sliced off the total formula grant to avoid the complexity of including it in the formula. The results of the 2001 census highlight some of the difficulties of simply projecting forward past population trends.
My hon. Friend proposed a more radical approach for the fire service formula to get rid of the perverse incentive of the fire calls indicator. I assure her that we have looked closely at all the formulae to ensure that they no longer include the perverse incentives and inadequate indicators that many of them contained.
588
On non-domestic rates, the Government have said in the pre-Budget report that we will explore how some of the increased business rate revenue derived from growth and regeneration might be retained by councils. We will be consulting on any proposals next year.
The formula grant review is, of course, about the distribution between authorities of a fixed pot of money. However, it is worth reminding the House that we have significantly increased the funding for local authorities overall since we took office, with Government grant increasing by 20 per cent. in real terms, compared with the 7 per cent. cut in real terms over the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration. The spending review ensures that councils will continue to see increased funding. I have repeated the good increases in grant for local authorities generally in previous Adjournment debates that have taken place recently in the House, and I do not wish to take up too much time in this debate repeating all the good news for local authorities.
My hon. Friend has called for even bigger increases in funding over the next three years, in particular for social services. We looked carefully at all the pressures facing local authorities, at the improvements in service we want to see made, at the room for greater efficiencies and at what the country can afford when setting the spending plans for the next three years—plans which provide now for a real-terms growth in funding for personal social services of 6 per cent. a year. We believe that we have been able to ensure that the people will be able to see real improvements over the next few years in the priority areas such as personal social services.
My hon. Friend has also asked for clarification on the Government's commitments on the level of grant increase next year. We have said that we will ensure that no local authority receives less grant than it did last year on a like-for-like basis—that is, if the composition, nature and functions of the local authority do not change significantly. This is a cash grant increase pledge—not in real terms—but we hope to do much better than this in the announcements that we make this time next week.
My hon. Friend has also asked for floors to be set for all three years of the spending review. We want to ensure that local authorities have greater certainty about future funding. We have said that we intend to keep floors and ceilings as part of the new system, and they will therefore feature in the local government finance settlement for at least the next two years. However, we cannot provide information on the levels of floors and ceilings for future years, as there are too many variable factors which can affect decisions on the floor. Given that, we are unable to provide this information much in advance of the provisional settlement for each year.
It is worth looking at how Swindon has benefited since we took office. It has received an annual average increase in standard spending assessments of 5.2 per cent., compared with an increase of 1.5 per cent. in the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration. Swindon's education SSA has increased by nearly £21 million—more than 37 per cent.—over five years. Its standards fund allocation has increased significantly, and it has received more money for capital, including the £58 million private finance

589
initiative scheme. In social services, Swindon's children's grant has increased by 18 per cent. and its carers' grant by 21 per cent.
A wide-ranging review is under way. There is, of course, a difficult balance to be struck, but we are considering carefully all the points that have been made, particularly by hon. Members who have spoken and
590
written in during the consultation period. The Government have a good track record of providing major new funds for councils, and I hope that, in the decisions that are announced next week, many hon. Members will see the commitments that we have been able to maintain.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. MARION ROE in the Chair]

Transport (10-Year Plan)
[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee Session 2001–02 HC558 and the Government's response thereto CM5569.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
2.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the Government came to office, it was clear that transport had not been one of the best-planned or best-organised industries on an island that is not the largest landmass in Europe. It is astonishing how frequently in the past we allowed individual industries to grow like Topsy without a clear idea of their real worth or place in society. Therefore, any Government who set out to produce a plan for the future of transport that goes up to 2010 and beyond are doing something that is desperately needed and will be widely welcomed by the industry and the public.
The then Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee set out to examine closely the Government's proposals and whether the terms of reference and resulting report had produced the results that we thought important. The final Committee report is detailed, exhaustive and critical, highlighting those areas where there are real difficulties. However, the report begins by accepting that, to have an integrated transport system, we must have a clear idea of our objectives and intentions and the timetables to which we will work to achieve the high level of contentment among the public that we all want.
The 10-year plan is based on key objectives and improving choice across all modes of transport. It seeks to reduce negative impacts. The Government set out a vision of modern, high-quality public transport; improved choice about how to travel; well maintained and larger road networks with better information; safer and more secure transport; a transport system that has less impact on the environment; and easier access to jobs through regeneration and town planning. Initially at least, the plan examined some of the difficult choices that previous Governments avoided, because transport impinges on so many areas of our lives that any Government have to take a number of very difficult decisions across the board.
We were therefore disappointed that the 10-year plan was not sufficiently balanced. It should have considered different aspects much more carefully. Why, for example, was so much of the plan predicated on a congestion model that our witnesses, almost without exception, said was flawed? Why was sufficient importance not attached to all the environmental questions, and why are the targets used not necessarily the correct ones?
138WH
Any transport plan that relies heavily on congestion targets rather than traffic growth, and does not confront the need to control or manage that growth, almost automatically avoids many very complex but urgent questions. We were not convinced that the document faced up to those arguments.
The first debate is about the car versus public transport. Our report clearly sets out that the costs of private motoring will fall substantially in the next 10 years, or in the time that the plan covers. We have the evidence to back that up. On the other hand, the costs of using public transport, if we can gauge them accurately, will continue to rise. They have already risen substantially under privatisation of the railways and other forms of transport. Frankly, that makes it much more difficult to get people out of their cars and on to public transport and to use public transport to counter social exclusion. The Government appear to be hindering, rather than helping.
The other great lacuna in the report was safety. However, I want to deal first with the argument about the private car versus public transport. This week, the Transport Committee took evidence from the Strategic Rail Authority. If I must make one strong complaint about the 10-year plan, it is about the lack of cohesion. It is strange that a Government constantly under attack for being centralising and full of control freaks who control every form of organisation do not seem to have got their basic planning right in relation to safety.
In giving evidence, the SRA made it clear that it operates to the obvious capital receipts and targets that it was given, but does not take account of the broader social interest. In some instances, it does not appear even to take account of the multi-modal studies, but is continuing along a narrow and targeted path to create change in its own interests. It is odd that in the 10-year plan the Highways Agency is expected to provide 25 per cent. of private capital for its expansion, whereas the rail industry is expected to provide 65 per cent. of its investment.
As soon as we begin to examine the detail, we discover that the original plan insisted that congestion charging schemes, which it expected to be widely available throughout the United Kingdom, would contribute substantially to the amount of money available to develop transport. Much transport planning was based on that assumption, but the Government must know that their attitude to congestion charging is not as clear as the rest of us would like it to be.
The Government wrote into the Transport Bill the right of local authorities to impose congestion charging, and included a great deal of extra cash from congestion charging schemes in their plan for transport. Yet when the Mayor of London appeared to be taking an active interest in setting up a congestion charging scheme, they were extremely careful not to back him too energetically, but did not set out their objections to the detail, interests, or objectives of the scheme. Inevitably, that will confuse those who want a clear view of where we are going.
The Government will have to accept that the 10-year plan must not simply be something set in stone that can be dragged out occasionally so that we can tell people that we have a firm plan for transport. It needs to be a rolling programme that re-examines at almost every

139WH
point changes in circumstances and the requirements for investment and change brought about by factors over which Governments have little control.
The railway industry is in an extraordinary situation. Private companies that took over franchises on the assumption that they would make considerable commitments to the Treasury are no longer doing so. Indeed, in the case of the west coast main line, the incompetent assessments of the former Railtrack have led to the Strategic Rail Authority giving considerable sums of public money to two companies—Virgin and Stagecoach—on the basis of their inability to deliver the services that were promised under the original contracts. It now appears that they may also be entitled to considerable compensation on top of the writing off of their previous commitments—we are not talking about small sums—and their additional Government funding.
Only this week we were told that eight different franchises within the railway system are running on management contracts. Frankly, when taxpayers and rate payers are examining their needs for transport systems and know that they will have to foot the bill for much of the investment themselves, they will begin to ask, "As I am paying for a management system over whose assets I have no control, and as I can see no evidence of my ability to dictate the standards, speed, cleanliness or security of the services, is it justifiable to continue to shell out at the rate and in the manner that has obtained until now?"
The Government are over-optimistic about how much private funding the plan will deliver. We took evidence from local authorities that are contemplating congestion charging systems. They are not doing so at the rate envisaged in the plan, and it is not enough authorities to make a difference. Inevitably, many of the original targets in the plan will prove unworkable. We must have a detailed debate on the future of charging for road use. Alternatively, we shall have to find other ways of managing the excessive and self-defeating growth of traffic. The Government need to set about those tasks as a matter of urgency—otherwise, the investment decisions within the plan will turn out to be incorrect.
We examined the plan's gaps in great detail. Local charging schemes were the cornerstone of the transport White Paper, but the Department has now decided to downplay the contribution that such schemes will make. If we are to have 20 schemes, we would like to see more evidence of them than is currently available.
I return to motoring costs. If the Government are allowing their attitude to be dictated by fear of the Poujadists of north Wales, they are not facing up to the implications of their policy. If motoring costs were held—not increased; we did not recommend that—at their existing level in real terms, that would not impose any extra costs on motorists than they pay today, but it would begin to address the difference between public transport and motor cars. It is not good enough to tell people that they should use public transport because it has environmental and other benefits. We need first to supply the services that people require and, secondly, to assure them that using public transport will not be more expensive than travelling by their own motor transport.
140WH
We need a great deal of clarity about the linkage between regional planning at different levels and transport decisions. I am sure that some of my colleagues will want to mention that today, because there is little point in having multi-modal studies, which go in considerable detail into regional needs and planning and the desires of the population, if they are not married up with the targets of larger transport authorities. There is little evidence that integrated planning is taking place in either the Highways Agency or the Strategic Rail Authority.
Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of multi-modal studies. There is at least one other hon. Member from the south-west here this afternoon. This is an excellent concept, but there has been no consultation with local areas about how their schemes could fit in. It has been very much top down. I want the tracks on the railway line from Cheltenham to Swindon to be doubled, and I am having difficulties getting the proposal back into the process. It has been left out, and now no one else wants to pick it up too willingly as a priority.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that the Government want to have a first-class rail system. They want to have it modernised as soon as possible, but that makes nonsense of the idea that the Strategic Rail Authority should take no account of the multi-modal studies or the targets in the 10-year plan. The SRA has already made it clear that several projects originally expected to be delivered through this plan will not be possible without new resources.

I did not intend to use this debate to talk in detail about rail services, but it is extremely worrying that as far as we can see, the enormous costs of the west coast main line have wiped out not just the budget that would have been available for modernisation but many small schemes all over the country that would have produced immediate and positive results. We are getting close to the point at which few companies in the train operating group contribute to national finance, yet taxpayers, who are still shelling out for this system, have not received value for money or any clear idea of how they will see the projected improvements that are so vital for their future. I have already said that we think that the Government are over-optimistic about the level of private funding. They seem to plan the main application of private funding for public transport because of their attitude towards roads.
This study which we undertook at the beginning of the year, accepted that the Government, for the best reasons in the world, were unable to deliver every detail of the plan that we considered essential. We gave them full marks for trying and we thought that their objectives were sensible, but frankly, that makes their failure to achieve what we seek even more worrying. The Government will have to provide a much more urgent plan, which will first need to deal with the practical problems of a transport industry that is close to meltdown. It would be bizarre in the extreme if the Government contributed to lowering motoring costs at the same time as they allowed the cost of travelling by public transport to increase. They must look urgently at a way in which the conclusions of the multi-modal studies can be integrated into the targets and delivery

141WH
programmes of the transport system. Passengers are becoming increasingly irritated by the amounts of money that are going into public transport systems without seeing a positive sign of real improvements.
The Committee is most grateful to Professor Phil Goodwin for his support; it was extremely helpful to have him working on the report. We are grateful to all those who gave evidence. They represented a wide range of interests—both the general public and people working in the transport industry. We also put on record our admiration for the work done by Greg Marsden, who is one of our specialist advisers, and by the Clerks.
Having a good idea is not enough. In transport policy, knowing what will be done with an idea is rather more important. Knowing how it will be achieved, how much it will cost and, above all, what will be done when bits of it go badly wrong marks out those Governments who are successful from those who are not. This Government can be successful, but they have to deal with severe time constraints. There is disillusion among the public. The 10-year plan needs to be put into operation in the long term, but needs to be seen to be coming on stream in the short term. I hope that if there is that kind of sensitivity to the needs of the travelling public, in five years' time we will be able to produce a report that has nothing but praise for my right and hon. Friends.
2.51 pm
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on ensuring the publication of a hard-hitting and challenging report. No doubt it was why the Minister was biting his nails, although perhaps the hon. Lady could not see that.
In considering the 10-year plan, the Select Committee's report and the Government's response, we should bear it in mind that the outcome of the plan should, among other things, be a safe, reliable and affordable public transport system. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to targets and monitoring. The report's list of conclusions on page 53 states:
"It is … imperative that the Plan sets yearly or intermediate targets for travel conditions so that progress towards the targets for 2010 can be assessed."
On page 58, it notes that the Department requires local authorities to produce interim targets for 2005 as part of the local transport plan process, but seems reluctant to come up with intermediate targets of its own. We must be able to monitor whether progress is being made so that, if it is not, action can be taken to ensure that the targets are reached within the time frame that was originally agreed.
We must look at the issue of joined-up government. The Government have set out some key objectives—tackling social exclusion, for instance—that the transport policy should be designed to achieve. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the need to look at the balance of cost in relation to public transport versus the private motor car. Although the 10-year transport plan identifies the fact that a significant percentage of the poorest households do not have cars—one assumes that the transport policy was designed to tackle social exclusion and assist the poorest people—the Government's response states:
142WH
"Given its central aim of improving the transport system, it is not surprising that the Plan can be expected to produce most benefit for those who travel most."
I disagree with the Government. If one of their priorities is to tackle social exclusion—in other words to help people who do not have access to a car and therefore do not travel much—it is surprising that the Government's 10-year transport plan should focus on making travel easier for those who travel most rather than for those who are socially excluded.
With regard to joined-up government, we are in the middle of a Select Committee inquiry into multi-modal studies, and it is unfortunately very clear that there is no real linkage between the 10-year transport plan and the multi-modal studies. We have identified the fact that there is no money available for rail improvements or that, if they are made, they will occur at the tail end of the process, in the last couple of years of the plan, or possibly beyond 2010.
Will the Minister comment on whether there will be enough skilled people available to do the work needed? For instance, if Crossrail, which is due to be delivered by 2011, receives the go-ahead from the Government, it will require between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all the skilled signalling staff available. I suspect that if all the rail improvements proposed by the Government as part of the multi-modal studies were to take place during that same period, there would be no one available to do the work.
The Government say that the environment and sustainability are at the core of their decision-making process. However, it is clear from the evidence that we received that the approach of the Highways Agency is still based on predict and provide for roads and an increase in car use, rather than a more sustainable approach.
The Select Committee report identifies the Government's commitment to improve the quality of service on the tube through a public-private partnership. The summary says that that process is nine months to one year behind schedule. If Mr. Livingstone proceeds with his court challenge, it could be three, four or five years behind—that is if there is any truth in the predictions that the legal battle over the tube will not be completed until 2006.
It must be pointed out that, so far, approximately £400 million has been spent on the tube through PPP without a single new escalator, let alone a new train set being provided. However, I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State's private office gave him a new train set today, as a birthday present. That may be the only new train set that he has to play with for some years to come.
We heard a long statement and exchange of questions about aviation today. It is worth pointing out that the 10-year transport plan assumed that the White Paper on aviation would be published by the end of this year. Clearly, that deadline will not be met: it seems probable that publication will be deferred to autumn 2003. More worryingly, there seems to be a disconnection between the Government's stated priorities on sustainability and what they are delivering on aviation, which has an almost total absence of emphasis on sustainability.
The Select Committee focused on rail freight and the clear target to increase it by 80 per cent. There has been a welcome increase in the amount of rail freight.

143WH
However, that may be a case of putting all the eggs in one basket, because that increase is principally in the transport of coal. I hope that that positive increase in freight will continue, and that the coal market does not move away from rail freight.
I am concerned about the target that has been set for rail freight. There has clearly been a shift away from the 80 per cent. target, because the Government have now said that the substantial increase in rail freight will be up to 80 per cent. That could mean no increase whatever. Can the Minister be more specific about where the increase is in the range between 0 per cent.—or even a decrease—and 80 per cent.?
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has referred to the need for a clear position statement, and David Begg from the Commission for Integrated Transport has called for leadership from the Government. We need that leadership in relation to both congestion charging and road user charging. Every time the issue of congestion charges is raised, a Minister steps up and says yes in principle, then goes on to rubbish whatever is being proposed. That is a rather soft position. No clear statement has been given on road user charging, so we have seen the spectacle of a series of multi-modal studies, each proposing something different because each made different assumptions about what the Government might do.
There is great uncertainty about the Government's ability to raise the necessary private finance for rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will talk about that shortly. Questions remain about the Government's commitment to cutting congestion, introducing congestion and road user charging, and tackling social exclusion through their transport policy. Severe doubts remain about the Government's ability to monitor their progress and to adjust their policies if they appear to be missing the targets. After five years, transport remains the Government's Achilles' heel and I fear that the Minister's response this afternoon will do nothing to dispel that view.
3.2 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I come to the debate in a detached way. I say that because the exchanges between the Select Committee and the Government seem to pass by my area and its transport needs—needs that arise from the fact that Lowestoft and the rest of my constituency feel detached from the national transport network.
My constituency is the easternmost part of the United Kingdom. Its road and rail links to the rest of the country are very poor and anything but modern at this time of talking about modernisation. When we talk about an integrated transport policy, we just want to be integrated with the rest of the country. Lowestoft is a small to medium-sized port whose purpose is to integrate the movement of goods on land and sea. It is difficult for a port to be successful if, unlike the rest of our industries, it does not have good transport links with the rest of the country. We want modern connections to the rest of the country and we do not want to be left out or left behind.
Nevertheless, from my reading of the Select Committee report and the Government's response, the latter is more in touch with the ordinary people of my
144WH
constituency and their expectations of transport than the former. The biggest failing of many of the debates on transport in this House and elsewhere is that we are presented with what I call a one-stroke policy—it is as though there is one policy for the whole country. Clearly, different parts of the country have different needs. I spend four days a week in London. Obviously, the policies needed here are completely different from those needed where I live for the remainder of the week.
Of course, transport policy must recognise environmental objectives, but we must understand that transport is the engine of the economy and that it must sustain local economies throughout the country, including in the "far east". At the moment, however, it is not doing so. An examination of the map reveals that the national road and rail network simply peters out in East Anglia, and the further east one proceeds, the worse the problem becomes. Poor transport links accentuate my constituency's geographical remoteness at the end of the East Anglian peninsula. Indeed, if we were to draw a map based on journey time, East Anglia would stretch half or two thirds of the way across the North sea, and my constituency would be at the end.
Unemployment is the key issue that we face locally. I am delighted to say that, since the Government have been in power, unemployment in my area has fallen from more than 11.5 per cent. to just 4.1 per cent. The figure fell again last month, but my area still suffers structural unemployment. The rate in most of the rest of East Anglia is 2 per cent. or below, and at 4 per cent., unemployment in my area is still above the national average. The Government recognise all that and give us all the designations that they can, including assisted area status, objective 2 funding and funding from the single regeneration budget. However, we still have structural unemployment, which is linked to low pay and deprivation. That all adds up to a weak economy.
Again and again, people in my area ask themselves, "Why us? Why are we in this position?" Labour and land are cheap, but we have lost our traditional industries. We have lost our shipbuilding, almost all of our fishing, much of our canning industry and many of the industries that sustained the town for so long. We cannot attract new industries, and existing industries find it difficult to expand and employ more people.
I cannot believe that our economic situation and our lack of jobs are not connected to our poor transport links and what I call our "disconnection". Many others feel the same way, and employers in my constituency are unanimous in claiming that the situation makes it harder for them to compete—it is the old level-playing field argument. I presume that entrepreneurs who want to start businesses have formed the same view, because we have a very low start-up rate in our area. I spend a lot of time in Westminster talking to national business leaders, telling them how wonderful the east coast is and how many opportunities there are. However, they all say, "Nice one, Mr. Blizzard, but you're a bit off the beaten track. Your area's almost a backwater, and we don't tend to look there." As we know, people cite location, location, location as an important factor in business.
Those involved in the last public examination of the regional planning guidance reached the same view. They said that transport links in East Anglia—particularly road links—were poor, and the decision makers

145WH
accepted that view. Ministers say the same thing. Nearly all the Ministers who come to my area arrive late because they underestimate the time it takes to get there. When I meet them here afterwards, they say, "My God, the roads are pretty awful up your way!" or "The railways aren't very good." Everyone recognises the problem. I had lunch with one of the country's most eminent environmentalists last year, and even he said, "We need to do an awful lot on modal shift in this country, but I have to say that East Anglia needs some better transport infrastructure."
The 10-year plan contains some good statements on that issue:
"Good transport is essential to an enhanced quality of life, to a strong economy and to a better environment."
I cannot disagree with that. The "Vision" chapter states that the aim of the plan is to

"boost the economic development of all regions … promote the renaissance of towns … enhance access and opportunity in rural areas … reduce social exclusion".
We tend to think of East Anglia as a generally rural place, although it has sizeable towns and cities. Overall, its economy is very strong; indeed, in places such as Cambridge, it has overheated. The city is turning business away because it cannot cope. For a long time, the regional strategy has been dispersal of that economic activity to other parts of the region. However, I cannot see how that prosperity can be dispersed unless there are better transport links.
What do I ask for, as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport listens to me this afternoon? Quite a lot of effort has been put into trying to develop a good rail link to Lowestoft. The project to develop rail in Lowestoft was even mentioned in the integrated transport White Paper, because the lines are right alongside the docks. The problem, however, is that a critical mass of freight volume is needed to make the project worthwhile. There is only one company that has that volume. It did a study, and, although there was quite a lot of hope, the plan did not work economically. I wish that such rail grants as exist were a bit wider in their terms of reference, in order perhaps to make up that difference and to get the freight going. At the moment, however, the situation looks bleak.
Let me turn to roads. I recently conducted a survey of 300 businesses in my constituency, to try to establish the most important route. It turns out that the A12 is a clear priority. Those businesses employ the people who need the jobs. The results of my survey underline the folly of trying to pretend that the other trunk road in the area—the A47, which runs from Norwich to Great Yarmouth—can operate as Lowestoft's main link. Few people in my town think that it makes sense to start by going north if one wants to go to London or even along the A14. I have measured the distance, and if one wants to go to London that way, it is 16 per cent. further, which means 16 per cent. more miles, fuel and emissions. The Minister will remember me talking in a previous debate about the magnificent lift-up bridge in the middle of Lowestoft. The idea that if one lives in the south of town one will go north over that bridge in order to go south is, frankly, bizarre.
The focus is on the A12, which was de-trunked following the roads review. I personally objected to the de-trunking. However, the local highways authority,
146WH
Suffolk county council, supported the de-trunking, because it felt that it could do more with the road by managing it itself. That view prevailed. Now we see what the council had in mind. It recently carried out a route study, which seems to have been conducted by asking everyone on the route what they want. If one lives on the road, it is obvious what one wants: understandably, one wants the traffic to go slower, for there to be more crossing places, and so forth. That is what the county council is coming up with. However, given that the route is necessary for the regeneration of our fragile economy, that will make things worse. Journey times will be increased, the perception of what getting to Lowestoft entails will be made even worse, and it will be harder to attract the businesses that we need. There will be fewer opportunities to overtake the ubiquitous East Anglian tractor when trying to get from A to B on time. We are now trying to get the highway authority to think again, and to make the economic needs of Lowestoft a priority, fitting in with the economic policy of the county.
If we want to satisfy the needs of people living on the roads in those villages, and to meet the needs of the economy of Lowestoft, we shall obviously have to consider some bypasses. There is a clear policy on bypasses in the 10-year plan: the Government will support them; there is funding for a number of bypasses. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm this afternoon that that remains the policy, that the Government support bypasses and will consider the case for them if a highway authority puts forward a proposal in a local transport plan.
Although I mention local transport plans, I do not think that we should underestimate how much is being achieved under the 10-year plan through local transport plans. A third of the money allocated under the 10-year plan is for those local transport plans, so long as they are the right plans and command the support of local people. I assume that just because a route has been de-trunked does not mean that it cannot be upgraded. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that.
Many studies have been made of the relationship between making road enhancements and the effect on local economies. People who do not like roads under any circumstances quote the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report and say that it came out against making that link. I have read the report very carefully, and it does not say that at all. In fact, the writers of the report say that the result of improvements may be some modest growth in local economies, but they are not sure to what extent. The report certainly does not say that there will be none—it says that it will be modest and that further local studies need to be carried out.
Some of the research that I have conducted suggests that there are other places in this country—in south Wales, north Wales and around Hull—where road improvements have had a major impact on local economies. Other countries around the world do not seem to have such doubts on the matter; whenever they want to open up a more remote part of the country, they invest in infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Minister has been visiting some of the countries that are about to accede to the European Union, which are all investing in their transport infrastructure to improve their economic performance.

147WH
Last summer, Lowestoft lost most of its fishing industry, which gave us the opportunity to look to the future. There are three possible futures for our town: we could be a retirement town, of which there are plenty around our coasts, a dormitory or a thriving working town. The only option that offers opportunities for our young people is the latter, but to reach that point we firmly believe that we need road improvements.
The issue is one of fairness. Other parts of the country have had investment in transport, and few people in those areas regret that investment. Those parts of the country that have been left out now need attention. We do not want to be abandoned or to be dealt with by a one-stroke transport policy that says "Anything but roads."
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to keep an eye on our campaigning with the highway authority. If and when proposals are made to upgrade the A12, I ask him to look on them favourably and take note of what I have said this afternoon. We have heard about multi-modal studies, in which much transport policy is rooted. I respect such studies and understand that we must consider these matters in a scientific way, but I urge him not to take the politics out of politics. The studies are a useful tool for prioritising schemes, but sometimes a bunch of experts go to a place and say to the local people, "You are all wrong, you don't know what you're talking about. You thought you needed that but we think this." That is dangerous, because it simply gives people another reason not to vote. If people say they want something and their Member of Parliament says, "Yes, I support that, vote for me," but they realise that even if they vote for him they will not get it because the matter has been decided by an expert, it puts another nail in the coffin of democracy.
3.18 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: The 10-year plan published by the Government got a widespread welcome, not only in this place but in the wider world, which is encouraging. It generated a lot of optimism and hope that, for the first time in a generation, we had a Government who were prepared to publish a document that moved away from the short-termism that has blighted transport policy for decades. Therefore, the general welcome for the document is well deserved.
I have the honour of being a member of the Transport Select Committee and the particular honour of serving under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is responsible, in no small way, for this comprehensive report. It is critical but positive and raises many important issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will regard the criticism in the report not as negative but as a positive attempt to move forward the agenda. I seem to recall that, in the dim and distant days of the 1997 election, and perhaps even during the 2001 election, transport policy was one of the issues on which the Government said that they wanted to be judged, so Labour Members have a vested interest in the matter.
The Government are seeking to engender a shift from use of the car to public transport. They seem to believe that giving people genuine choice about whether to use
148WH
their cars or public transport will bring about the modal shift that we all want by some mechanism that I have not yet been able to identify. The vital issue is whether promoting choice will be sufficient to tackle what we all know is the core problem—the increasing dependence of the travelling public on the motor car. Personally, I do not think that it will be. Our report shows in detail why that will not be sufficient. The Government need to step back, take a deep breath, count to 10 and closely examine the report, because based on the evidence, promoting choice simply will not work and more will be required.
One of our witnesses, Professor Begg from the Commission for Integrated Transport, said that a sticks and carrots approach was required—promotion and improvement of public transport and restraint on motor car use, especially in urban areas. The Government show no signs so far of being successful in the former or having any enthusiasm for the latter. That extremely important point comes out in our report.
The 10-year plan concentrates on improvements and new facilities for transport. That is all well and good because, without those improvements, the plan will not succeed, but there is something missing. If we focus entirely on what transport provision we should approve or what new infrastructure we should provide, we will avoid forming any vision of life or of travel beyond 2010. The report clearly shows that we should not start work on a major transport infrastructure and hope for it to be completed within 10 years. As we know, most of the important rail transport infrastructure projects will be backloaded. We must consider what vision we have for our society in 2010 and beyond, but there is little evidence of that in the 10-year plan or the Government response to our report. Indeed, there is little evidence that the Government have such a vision.
Will the projects that go ahead in the 10 years of the plan be consistent with any vision for after 2010? If the Government have no vision for living and travel in our society after that time, how can they reach a judgment as to whether the schemes that are started, particularly any that are backloaded three years before the end of the plan, will have an effect beyond that time?
The report is critical of Lord Birt's refusal to attend our Committee. As hon. Members may know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed Lord Birt to head the forward strategy unit. He is particularly involved in forward strategy thinking on transport, so we asked him to attend. We said, "Come along, Lord Birt. Don't be shy. We have watched your television programmes many times," but he refused to come. The position was, in other words, "If there is forward strategic thinking, it has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Transport. Mind your own business." That cannot be acceptable, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on it.
Our report points out that the Government refuse to set targets to reduce the growth in traffic. That is disappointing, and a serious omission. I hope that, in the review of the 10-year plan, my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider that, because we must address whether we have the capacity to cater for growth. If we do not know what the growth will be, and we are not taking measures to restrain it or setting targets to adjust it, we have no chance of developing the necessary

149WH
infrastructure. The result will be that no account is taken of the impact of traffic growth on quality of life and the reliability and safety of transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to costs, and I want to emphasise the increasing and alarming gap between the cost of motoring and of public transport. How on earth can we increase public transport use by 50 per cent., or whatever percentage the Government have laid down in the 10-year plan, when it is cheaper to use a motor car and more expensive to use public transport? The financial mechanism is completely the wrong way round for that to be achieved, but as yet the Government seem unwilling to consider the problem. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in evidence to the Committee that he did not intend to place unreasonable additional cost burdens on motorists.
Let me repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. We are not talking about imposing extra costs on motorists; we simply want the Government to keep the cost of motoring constant in real terms. If that happens, we have a chance, but if it does not, we have no chance. It is vital that the Government deal with the situation. If it is allowed to continue, it will benefit the better-off motorist and continue to penalise the less well-off in our society. I do not know how that squares with the Government's social inclusion agenda. I simply cannot equate the two, and I am someone who supports the Government—most of the time. The Minister needs to tell us how that apparent contradiction squares with the Government's agenda.
The 10-year plan does not keep the difference between the cost of driving and of using public transport anything like constant; it exaggerates it. We described that in the report as incomprehensible. The balance desperately needs to be restored. The basic question is this: if motoring costs will not remain constant during the 10 years of the plan—the Secretary of State has said that he is not prepared to impose an extra burden—why is it acceptable for extra cost burdens to be inflicted on public transport users? That is not an unfair question, and our report poses it.
Charging schemes are central to the plan. Some £2.7 billion from such schemes has been incorporated into the budget available for transport during the period of the plan, so it is not insignificant. At the moment, few schemes are on the drawing board or being planned. We know about the one in London and will see what happens there. However, the Government need to deal with some barriers. Local authorities and the population at large may accept charging schemes of one description or another, provided that public transport alternatives are available. At the moment, that is not the case. The Government have to ensure that public transport improvements can be provided in local areas, at least at the same time as charging schemes may be applied. My real problem with the Government is that they are too cautious. The Department for Transport is far too cautious, and ought to be more proactive in terms of charging schemes and resources for public transport.
I consider the most difficult and problematic aspect of the 10-year transport plan and its objectives to be rail. Some hon. Members have referred to freight, but I want to concentrate on passenger rail. The objective is to
150WH
increase passenger kilometres on rail by 50 per cent. during the period of the plan. Some £33.5 billion of public money and £34 billion of private money will be involved in that increase in ridership. Those are enormous sums. Of course, we still hear from the SRA that they are not enough.
All the evidence that we have taken, not only during the inquiry but since the report was published, suggests that the SRA is having great difficulty levering anything like the necessary money from the private sector so that infrastructure developments can go ahead. Several billion pounds of private money have been put into rolling stock, which we welcome, but as yet I have been unable to detect a single infrastructure project that has levered in any private money. Such difficulties will increase.
The Government's transport plan and all the other plans suggest that infrastructure costs through the SRA will be based on Railtrack's cost assessments. If I dare to mention the west coast main line, that will give some idea of how silly and groundless it would be to base costs on Railtrack's assessments.
The report is deeply sceptical as to whether the Strategic Rail Authority will lever in the private money that accounts for more than half of the Government's intended expenditure on rail of £60 billion over 10 years. One of the Government's great challenges, and a problem that is a legacy of the previous Administration and the privatisation of rail, is the fact that the railway industry has been splintered and almost dismembered. That has led directly to the problems that the Government face today. In spite of the progress that has been made—and a lot has—in addressing that splintering and in putting back together and co-ordinating the railway industry, much remains to be done.
We are nearly three years into the transport plan, and as yet no private money has been levered in for infrastructure projects. If the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority continue to insist that so-called special purpose vehicles are to be the channel through which private investment will be forthcoming for infrastructure projects—although there have not been any such projects yet—they could create great problems. First, will the money be forthcoming? Secondly, will that not splinter the railway again, as we shall have up to 15 special purpose vehicles?
If the special purpose vehicles involve the train operating companies, as is intended, they will presumably be concentrated on sections of track that are of concern to a company. Would that not create a risk of repeating the splintering of the railway industry that created the problems in the first place?
There is a lot to commend the Government on, including their courage in tackling the issue. We must realise that everyone is a transport expert. Put a compulsory purchase order on someone's home and there will be a row, but paint double yellow lines and put a bus stop outside their door and you will have a revolution on your hands, Mr. Butterfill. Go into any local pub, and everyone has an answer to such problems.
The good intentions and courageous objectives laid down in the plan by the Government are in danger of not being achieved because some very important spokes in the wheel are beginning to look wobbly—in fact,

151WH
some of them are beginning to come off. Unless they act decisively, not to reinvent the wheel but to put the spokes back in place, and have the courage of their convictions to tackle the issues that they know exist, the Government will not fulfil the good intentions and objectives that we all support, certainly not in the planned period, and it is difficult to think that they will do so afterwards.
Our report goes far in pointing the Government in the direction of tackling the difficulties and challenges in a positive way, and I hope that the debate will help the Minister to take the agenda forward.
3.38 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the way in which she conducted the wide-ranging investigation that has resulted in a report that identifies what is good in transport and the importance of the 10-year plan. The report identifies the aspects on which there is lack of ambition and uncertainty of delivery. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their response. Much has changed since the publication of the report. We now have Network Rail and a rejuvenated Strategic Rail Authority. The Government have recognised the importance of transport and the priority that they must attach to it in dealing with our communities and promoting economic regeneration. They have made major attempts to improve the situation that existed only a few months ago, but there are still areas of concern. I shall identify some of them and suggest a way forward.
The report says that important aspects of transport are omitted from the plan. One aspect is social inclusion. We need a transport policy that takes into account not only mobility and regeneration, which are important, but the needs of excluded individuals and communities so that they can participate fully as citizens in our society. It is important to remember that 60 per cent. of the poorest households have no access to a car. National figures show that 31 per cent. of the population do not have access to a car, but the situation is different in the areas of greatest need. In Liverpool, 55 per cent. of all households do not have access to a car.
We must recognise that individuals need transport to have access to employment—to get to job interviews, to get to jobs and to keep jobs. They also need it to have access to amenities such as shopping, health and leisure facilities. Transport enables people to participate fully in society, whether as workers or as citizens.
If we add that understanding to the fact that many people do not have private transport, we see the importance of concentrating on accessible and affordable public transport. We must improve bus services. In the poorest groups, nine out of 10 journeys are made by bus, something that is often overlooked.
I noted with pleasure that the Government's response to our report stated that they were in discussion with the social exclusion unit over the study of the relationship between transport and social exclusion. I welcome that, and should be interested to hear from the Minister what progress the Government have made in addressing this
152WH
important aspect of social exclusion. I shall suggest to the Minister a way in which he and his colleagues can address social exclusion and regeneration and start to fulfil some of the specific promises in their 10-year plan. It is something that could be done in Liverpool at the moment on the commitment in the 10-year plan to an expansion in light rail. The plan refers to the Government's intention to double the number of journeys made by light rail and increase the number of light rail lines by about 25.
The Minister could fulfil part of that promise this afternoon by giving us the long-awaited answer to Mersey Rail's application to go ahead with the Mersey tram scheme. The scheme is extremely important. If successful, it would bring trams back to Liverpool for the first time in 50 years. Ministers are considering line 1 of a scheme that is valued at £400 million. Line 1 is valued at the bargain price of just over £200 million. The scheme would provide a link between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre, including the city centre loop. It would allow the Government in one jump to fulfil their promise to increase passenger journeys on light rail. Of the three lines, line 1 alone would lead to 9 million extra passengers per annum using light rail.
Sixty-four per cent. of households on the lines to be covered by the proposed Mersey tram have no access to cars, so it would deal immediately with social exclusion issues. Line 1 would go through six pathways areas, which have the highest concentration of social and economic need in Merseyside. There is 10 per cent. unemployment, 15 per cent. of people claim income support compared to the national average of 9 per cent., and the average household income is about £11,500 whereas the United Kingdom average is £16,000. The line would cross areas of great need in Kirkby, the 580 partnership, Queens, Stanley, Parks and Liverpool 1. It would link up with existing bus and rail services. It would provide jobs in construction and maintenance of the line and would create a link with employment areas such as the waterfront development in Liverpool and the new retail centre being built by Grosvenor/Henderson.
The scheme would link people with amenities. Along the proposed lines there are 38 primary schools, 10 secondary schools, Knowsley community college, 20 adult centres and seven libraries with special drop-in centres to encourage adults to develop their training and education. The trams would also create a link to medical facilities such as the Royal Liverpool university hospital. Supporting and approving the line would at one stroke provide excluded communities with access to jobs and amenities and help the regeneration of Liverpool and Merseyside.
The Mersey tram application has been with Ministers for some time. Time matters, because regeneration in Liverpool is well under way and we need the project to allow it to develop further in a way that benefits all people in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. It matters, too, because a significant part of the funding for the project—in addition to what we hope will come from the Government—is objective 1 money from the European Union, and there is a time limit on those funds. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to give us an answer today and to ensure that it is a positive one to allow the Mersey Rail light rail system to go forward as quickly as possible.

153WH
Another area of concern in the Committee's report is economic regeneration in general. In her introductory remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the lack of clarity between national decision making, regional plans, regional economic strategies, comments made by regional assemblies, plans proposed by passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives, where they exist, and the multi-modal studies currently being put together. There is a lack of clarity not just about specific transport issues but about decisions that relate to the interaction between transport, land planning and economic regeneration. It is far from clear how those decisions are made and how they are co-ordinated.
Paragraph (r) of the Government's response to our report relates to assessment of rail transport schemes. Paragraph (r) states:
"All scheme proposals, including those emerging from regional transport strategies and multi-modal studies, are evaluated using generally accepted methodology … This takes full account of costs and benefits under each of the five main criteria—environment, economy, safety, accessibility and integration."
I welcome that very much. However, at an evidence session held by the Select Committee on Transport only yesterday, I was most disturbed that the chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority, Mr. Bowker—who provides a welcome lead on transport issues—appeared to be unclear about whether economic regeneration was a factor in his assessment of transport initiatives. I would like some clarification on the matter. The Government's reply to our report also causes me concern. I am unclear about where economic regeneration fits into the Government's and the SRA's evaluation of proposed transport schemes.
Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend has been rather kind to Mr. Bowker. I do not think that he said, in quite the gentle terms that she used, that there was no very clear understanding in the SRA; I think that he positively said that the SRA would not take account of the factors that she has just enunciated and that are so vital to the development that she has been talking about.
Mrs. Ellman: My hon. Friend may well be correct. I certainly felt that it was very far from clear what was happening. My hon. Friend notes that Mr. Bowker suggested that economic regeneration was not a factor in analysing the costs and benefits of particular schemes. I recall that that was what was said.
Mr. Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend find it rather puzzling that when the development of airports is proposed, economic regeneration is one of the first issues that the Government say is important, yet when it comes to railways the Government and the SRA do not seem to recognise the issue?
Mrs. Ellman: Yes. My hon. Friend's point adds even more weight to the importance of considering economic regeneration in relation to all transport measures.
If there is going to be successful economic regeneration, we need to address the importance of freight. Freight is important to the country as a whole and to individual regions. Certainly in the north-west, the need to meet freight requirements to support the
154WH
expansion of the economy is being addressed. However, we are still without answers to very important questions. A freight quality partnership is operating in the north-west, yet the north-west regional freight strategy has not yet been completed.
Again, if I can refer to the comments made yesterday by Mr. Bowker, I am extremely concerned that a centralist approach is being taken. I fear that the importance of regional needs, as expressed through those quality freight partnerships and the regional development agencies, will not be seen as part of the national strategy. They will simply be seen as something additional to it, which may or may not be relevant to the decision that will be taken centrally. It is not clear what decisions are being taken about the west coast main line and the differing needs of passengers and freight. We still await an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister and, perhaps more specifically, the Strategic Rail Authority on the proposed dedicated freight route from Liverpool to northern France mainly using existing rail lines and going through the channel tunnel.
We must also look at the importance of ports and links with ports in developing freight. In particular, we must see how the port of Liverpool can be linked with improvements to trans-Pennine routes. That is especially important as we look at the potential for expanding trade with Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Has any thought been given to that in the studies in NETA—the north European trade axis? I am far from clear how local developments are being linked with national strategies and national decisions.
It is also important to look at the contribution that airports such as Manchester airport and the expanding and increasingly successful Liverpool John Lennon airport can make. We need to look at the contribution that can be made by road, rail, airports and ports and the links and integration between those different modes. I feel unclear about how that is to be addressed. I would feel much more confident if we had a directly elected regional assembly with the powers to work with the Government in co-ordinating national needs and regional interests.
I recognise the renewed importance that the Government have attached to transport issues. I recognise the care that they are taking to implement the recommendations in the 10-year transport plan. It is important that the Government continue to be conscious of the importance of transport to economic regeneration and for those who are socially excluded. They must look at the national interest while recognising that regions and localities are intrinsic to it.
3.58 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I hope at the end of my speech to echo some of the points that she made about the lack of integration of planning and decision making. She made a thoughtful speech and I listened to it with great interest.
I also congratulate the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on an excellent report. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said that everyone considers themselves to be a traffic expert. I strongly recommend that he does not come to my meeting with the Bath chamber of commerce

155WH
tomorrow, when I suspect I will be confronted by 200 people who are all traffic experts. The advantage that the Committee has is that it can call expert witnesses, and the Committee's analysis of some of their comments is helpful to all hon. Members, not just those who are here today.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a rather muted speech. She has been much more coruscating in the past about Government policies. She was right to set out at the beginning her praise for the Government in that they at least had a plan that looked to the future and had a set of aims and objectives. After all, if there had not been such a plan we would not be having this debate today. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pointed out, there is much to criticise in the plan. However, he implied that he supported some aspects of it, which the Committee has said it also supports. We also support several elements of it. Inevitably, in a debate such as this, we tend to concentrate on areas of disagreement, but I would not want it thought that there were none.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside appropriately said, it is right to have a plan with aims and objectives. I also fully support her comment that this needs to be the basis for a rolling plan, and we need to look forward to the future. I hope that the Minister, in his winding-up speech, will comment on the Government's intention to reconsider the changes to the 10-year transport plan.
As I said, there were, rightly, several criticisms about various aspects of the plan. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South described it as a wobbly wheel whose spokes were coming off. Having listened to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I suspect that he would be grateful for any wheel whatever in his constituency, however wobbly it might be. Members of the Select Committee expressed concern about the unbalanced nature of the plan and its failure to address the management of traffic growth as motoring costs fall and public transport costs rise.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and others were right to be critical of the Government's failure to give a clear signal about where they stand on congestion charging and road pricing. Given the latest announcements about the continued growth in congestion on our roads, it seems odd that the only real response from the Government was to announce that we will have a congestion tsar. So much for a Government seemingly obsessed with targets—we now seem to have one that is increasingly obsessed with tsars of one sort or another. I note with interest that since September this year alone, a London schools tsar, an anti-spam tsar and an emergency medicine tsar have already been announced. We are now to have a congestion tsar.
As other hon. Members said, we need seriously to consider how we will address the problem of congestion on our roads, using the carrot and the stick. We are all aware of the figures, although some of them may not have the firmest of economic foundations. We all know that some people would argue strenuously that congestion on our roads is costing British businesses from between £15 billion and £20 billion a year, a figure that is rising. We also know that it is causing the nation significant health problems: large numbers of people are
156WH
suffering as a result of air pollution from congestion on our roads. In many of our cities, traffic speeds are slower than they were in the time of carts and horses in the Victorian era. Clearly, we need to address those problems and must be prepared to offer bolder and more radical solutions.
Sticks must be used in the form of congestion charging and road pricing. However, I hope that those who have already talked about this will agree that we should introduce those sticks only where alternative "choices", as the 10-year plan calls them, are available to the people who will be affected. In an area where congestion charging is to be introduced, it is vital to have high-quality, safe, reliable and affordable public transport alternatives. Such a choice must be available first. It is therefore important that the Government and all political parties have now seen that some of the cruder measures designed to manage traffic growth are not right.
In the past, we might simply have suggested massively slapping up the cost of fuel. In reality, that would hit everyone in all sorts of circumstances, especially those people in remote rural areas without the alternative of high-quality public transport, who would lose out. That is why increasingly it is right to focus on measures that address the specific problems of congestion and the pollution that it causes.
It is important that the Government give clearer signals as to where they stand on the sticks now available under the Transport Act 2000, which are frequently referred to in the 10-year transport plan. If we are to improve the availability of safe, reliable and affordable public transport, we need a clear indication of the level of financial support other than that likely to be achieved through the fare box.
The Select Committee is concerned about the clarity of the Government's intentions on funding. Much is made of the £180 billion in the 10-year transport plan, but we all know that in the first two years under the Labour Government, the amount invested in public transport was less than under the previous Conservative Government. Further analysis of the alleged £180 billion makes apparent the smoke and mirrors behind the calculation of the figures. Under the current price base, the £180 billion becomes £157.6 billion. Taking out the amount spent on public resource expenditure leaves only £103 billion for new investment, of which £48 billion depends on the private sector, thus leaving only £55 billion of committed public investment. Comparison in real terms with the amount provided by the previous Conservative Government reveals that, although the funding is welcome, we are gaining only £1 billion a year more. We have to ask questions about the hype surrounding the amounts that the Government have announced.
The Minister has an opportunity today to clarify some of the confusions that remain. He will be well aware of doubts about the moneys available to different bodies and the letters of comfort provided to various companies developing bids to become infracos on the London underground.
Particular concerns have also been voiced about the status of Network Rail. The Liberal Democrats are delighted that the Government moved from Railtrack—a monopoly body torn by conflict between passenger

157WH
safety and shareholder profit—to a public interest company through which profits will be fed back into the system. We genuinely welcome that and we proposed it some time ago. However, the new body's funding seems increasingly unclear. Is Network Rail's £21 billion budget on or off the Government's balance sheet? A row is now developing between the auditors and statisticians about where Network Rail fits. I understand that it is to borrow money in the public market on the basis of Government guarantees. One would have thought that that meant accounting on the Government's account books, but some people are arguing against that. We need clarity, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Some additional moneys will become available, so the crucial point is where and how they will be spent. Many people, including myself, can stand up and make a case for various projects in their local areas. The hon. Members for Waveney and for Liverpool, Riverside have rightly done so. I do not ask a great deal for my area—perhaps a decent public transport system with some Government support, the opening of Corsham station just outside my constituency, and sorting out the problems of Freshford station within it. The list is endless, but one thing is clear: there is a lack of clarity about who is taking the decisions and who can influence them. What will be the role of the regional assemblies and elected regional government in the future?
As other hon. Members have said, we are confused about why the Strategic Rail Authority's thinking is not linked to the multi-modal study's work. I go a stage further and suggest it is bizarre that today there was a statement on airport expansion, but in the consultation documents there was little or no reference to the role of the Strategic Rail Authority and the work that will be necessary to improve surface transport access to existing and planned new airports. There is a lack of integration in many of the projects and some rather strange thinking by those who take the decisions.
I welcomed the Government's recent announcement of improvements on our roads to deal with what they call "pinch points". I am not a great believer in huge new roads being built all over the country but it is common sense to build improved roundabouts and so on to provide better access to roads. Why is there such thinking in relation to roads but not to the railways? A great deal of money is being locked into the west coast main line and the Government have not yet placed a cap on public expenditure on that project. We should be thinking much more smartly about the sort of small improvements that improve the capacity of the existing network—measures such as putting in an odd little siding in a loop system so that a slow train can get out of the way of a fast train and then return to the main track.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich touched on rail safety and how it can be improved along with improvement to network capacity. There is a problem because Lord Cullen said that advanced train protection must be in place on all trains by 2008 and be operational by 2010. However, if the current basic ATP was introduced, it would not do a great deal to improve safety and it would do nothing to help with track management and greater track utilisation. It might be better to wait for the European rail traffic management system—ERTMS—level 2 which will come a few years later, but that would mean admitting that Lord Cullen's
158WH
requirements will not be met and having a genuine, open public debate about it. It worries me enormously that the Health and Safety Executive website states that it is having a quiet little consultation on the subject, but the public has not been notified. There has not been an opportunity for wide-scale involvement in a very important consultation.
It concerns me deeply that 63 recommendations made by Lord Cullen either have not been met, or, if they have, no one has told anyone that they have been met. Some of them are probably not very sensible recommendations and there may be good arguments for changing or dropping them, but we need to be told what they are and when the remaining recommendations will be implemented. I hope that the Minister will say something on the important issue of safety.
I am worried that lots of deadlines are being missed, whether they are on safety targets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred, targets in the 10-year transport plan or targets for the public service agreements agreed by the Department with the Treasury. Of seven key targets, it is worth reporting that the Government have failed to meet four.
The Committee should dwell long and hard on the crucial matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, namely how the decision-making processes on these matters need to be much more closely and effectively linked. The hon. Lady referred to the difficulty not only in linking together the various transport bodies but in linking transport with planning issues. There is huge fragmentation when it comes to taking decisions. I entirely support the Government's aspiration to develop integrated transport, but if they are ever to do it, there must be integrated thinking about the development of integrated transport.
I ask the Minister to reflect on how many different bodies have been set up by the Government and the industry with the sole job of looking at creating integrated transport. The list is lengthy and it includes the Commission for Integrated Transport. I worry about the failure to integrate thinking on these issues.
I end on a positive note: not all is doom and gloom and some real improvements are being made but there are some areas of difficulty. For example, more secure stations are needed, although none could be more secure than Bath Spa station at 4 am on Monday. A group of my constituents had set off from Paddington at 9 o'clock the previous evening. The first two trains were cancelled and the next one was massively delayed. It then stopped in Reading, where the group had to change. Having set off at 9 pm on Sunday to make the 90-minute journey to Bath Spa, they eventually arrived at 4 o'clock the following morning. When they reached their destination, they discovered that the station was truly secure, because all the doors were locked and there was no way out. Those constituents were very angry. Stations are, therefore, secure.
I hope, Mr. Butterfill, that you will have the opportunity to see the work being carried out by Journey Solutions, which has put together one of the more exciting integrated transport schemes. Under that scheme one can, at long last, go into certain railway stations to buy a railway ticket and buy a bus ticket at the same time. It has taken us a long time to reach that point.
4.15 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome this debate and am delighted to participate in it. I do not wish to disappoint my former colleagues on the Transport Committee and so will declare an interest at the outset. My husband is an airline executive, and I have interests in BA, BAA, Railtrack, First Group, Eurotunnel and the RAC.
I congratulate the Select Committee, and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on this excellent report. I hope that she will forgive me for a little bias, as I was a member of the Committee. I believe that it was one of the hardest-working Committees during the last Session, and that we achieved a huge amount. I was delighted to participate in its work.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that we miss her on the Committee. She worked hard and was a useful member. We also miss her because of her marvellous declaration of interests, with which we started every meeting, and of which we are now sadly deprived.
Miss McIntosh: Perhaps I can send a framed copy of the relevant page of this debate to the hon. Lady.
I congratulate the Committee and its members on this timely report, which is a comprehensive and constructive appraisal of the 10-year transport plan.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I say that this is now a downgraded plan from a downgraded Department. We noticed, with some interest, that we have had three Secretaries of State for the almost three years of the plan. Many now see the 10-year plan as a 10-year sham.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, mentioned smoke and mirrors. I prefer to speak of announcements and re-announcements. I will not list all the dates of the relevant press releases, but the investment in infrastructure and capacity has been announced five times since December 1999. Opposition Members are therefore a little cynical about re-announcements.
On page 20 of their response to paragraph (hh) of the Select Committee report the Government state:
"We will publish a first report on progress on delivery of the 10 Year Plan in the autumn."
Will the Minister tell us where that report is? He said that it would be published this autumn, but there is less than a month to Christmas. It is less than a month to the winter solstice and we still see no sign of that first progress report.
The targets lie in tatters and the funding is clearly insufficient.
Mr. Stevenson: I recognise the expertise of the hon. Lady, and her input into the work of the Select Committee and this report. I am intrigued that she mentions funding. Is she about to tell us whether, if her party came into government, it would commit itself to the funding that the Government have committed to, or whether it would cut it?
Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another opportunity. It will not be too long before
160WH
we set out our stall, but he will forgive me if I do not take the opportunity to do so. Perhaps by the spring solstice we will have more information, so he should watch this space.
Has the Minister seen the details of trade routes circulated to all right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in transport? They could be an alternative 10-year strategic plan, setting out investment priorities for the road and rail networks. Can he respond to them?
The Government's proposed funding is £180 million, made up of both public and private cash. The hon. Member for Bath made a point about the off-balance sheet liability of Network Rail, which will apparently be £21 billion. I wait to hear from the Minister the implications of that for transport spending. Hon. Members will have had the opportunity to study the Red Book this week. Of the total budget for the current financial year of £420 billion, only £12 billion is to be spent on transport. By my calculations, that is approximately 3 per cent.
The Government's original funding programme would have provided £60 billion for railways, of which £7 billion probably had to be accounted for twice as it would have gone to the railways anyway to make up private sector commitments. There was £60 billion for roads and £60 billion for local transport. A target was set to increase significantly rail's share of the freight market by 2010, which meant an increase of 80 per cent. in rail freight.
As hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee will recall, we learned in the context of other reports that those targets were way off beam. For six months, transport through the channel tunnel was disrupted between 9 pm and 3 am. Indeed, a paragraph of the report is devoted to that. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will recall that that disruption was ongoing when our report was published. I record again my sincere disappointment at the failure of the Department for Transport and other Departments to raise that subject with the French authorities. Our constituents, such as Potters of Melmerby in the Vale of York, EWS, the Freight Transport Association and others lost vast sums of money in that regard.
The Minister must accept that putting Railtrack into administration destroyed, in one swift move, the confidence of private investors much wealthier than myself who might have wanted to invest in rail projects in future. The greater the risk, the higher the cost. We have discussed the £21 billion off-balance sheet liability for Network Rail.
Mr. Stevenson: Is the hon. Lady seriously trying to convince hon. Members that if Railtrack had been left alone and no action had been taken, its obvious success since its establishment by the previous Government would have seen us through?
Miss McIntosh: This is not the occasion to go over the history; we could spend the entire afternoon on it. In a spirit of constructive criticism, we should try to move forward.
Of the Government's projected investment in the railways, 50 per cent. should come from private finance. In the first two years of the 10-year transport plan, we

161WH
have seen nothing like that level of funding. The Minister might contradict me this afternoon, but I have not seen a level of investment to convince me that, having been so low over the first two years, it will recover over the remaining period.
Tom Brake: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the best ways in which to unlock the private investment for a project such as Crossrail is for the Government to indicate their support?
Miss McIntosh: I am coming to the lack of Government transparency over which projects they support.
My comments on a previous Select Committee report, which recommended the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation board, apply here too. That would go a long way towards satisfying both investors and rail passengers. It is some time since Lord Cullen made that recommendation. Perhaps the Minister has an announcement on the point this afternoon.
The target was to increase rail passenger use to 50 per cent. above 2000 levels by 2010. However, the SRA has announced a disappointing reduction in the duration of rail franchises from the revised—increased—20 years to six or eight years. Mindful of the fact that the original franchise holders said that seven years was not long enough for them to see a return on their investment, I record my disappointment in that reduction.
The words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on bus use struck a chord with me, as I represent a rural constituency. There are pockets of rural poverty in the Vale of York that have insufficient public transport, particularly buses. I am disappointed that we have lost one route from Rawcliffe and Skelton into York, because buses are a potential answer to a problem with which we have become familiar during the first term of this Government—social exclusion. The Government hope to see bus use increase by 10 per cent. over the 2002 levels by 2010. How can they claim that that is achievable when, under Labour, bus use across England has declined outside London, Birmingham and eastern England? Perhaps the Minister can square the equation this afternoon.
Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Lady raises some important points. She mentions the success of bus passenger ridership increases in London, which is still regulated. Is she arguing for a re-regulation of bus services in the rest of the country?
Miss McIntosh: No. I pray in aid the rather inadequate evidence that the Committee heard in a separate inquiry from the Office of Fair Trading. I believe that the jury is still out. That is a separate debate, and I hope that we can return to it.
On road congestion, Trafficmaster this week judged that road journey times had increased by an average of 16 per cent. since 1998, but that the increase was more than 30 per cent. on the busiest stretches of motorway. As the Daily Telegraph reported on 26 November:
"The analysis, by the driver information group Trafficmaster, showed that delays had risen much faster than the increase in traffic, suggesting that the knock-on effects of network bottlenecks were worsening."
162WH
Perhaps the Minister would care to answer that one.
The congestion in London is familiar to all hon. Members and members of the public. It has worsened in anticipation of congestion charging. What is the response of the Secretary of State? It is to announce a traffic tsar. That was the subject of the lead article on the front page of the Evening Standard, also on 26 November. If the Government are minded to introduce the concept of a traffic tsar, why was it not deemed suitable at the time of the creation of the office of London Mayor, or when setting up Transport for London? All future applications for permits to dig up the road or to do any repairs will have to be made through the tsar. That adds an extra tier of bureaucracy. Who will it be? When will he or she be appointed? The measure was not in the Queen's Speech, and perhaps the Minister can tell us when parliamentary time will be made available for the necessary primary legislation. How many tsars will there be? Will there be one for London, one for Birmingham and one for Manchester? Perhaps the Minister can satisfy our curiosity.
The original 10-year plan also set targets for walking and cycling, and hon. Members will recall that I am keen on both. I simply make a personal plea to the Minister, whose attention I crave at this point. Will he dispense with staggered crossings, such as that outside 4 Millbank? I notice that some Ministers, although not this one, do not deem it appropriate to use that crossing.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke of the important relationship between local transport plans and multi-modal studies, regional planning priorities, as expressed in regional transport strategies, and projects under the 10-year plan. That struck a chord with hon. Members and with the Select Committee, and I want to add another issue. We should consider the implications of the road de-trunking programme, which is due to be completed by the end of March 2003. Will the Minister tell us when financing for de-trunked roads will be fully integrated into local authorities' budgets? I gather that that will not coincide with local authorities taking up their new responsibilities for those roads. It will be interesting to hear about that.
In paragraph (cc) of the report, the Committee states:
"We reiterate our concern that it is impossible to tell whether the Plan is on target, if it merely consists of a series of aspirations for 2010 and little detail on how we shall achieve them from the current position."
The Minister must be able to see for himself and to understand the increasing anxiety on the part of industry, those involved in transport operations and even the businesses whose goods are transported. They are anxious about the Government's commitment and ability as regards delivering the 10-year plan. Will the Minister respond to their anxiety by giving us a date for the announcement of investment decisions and a timetable for implementation? Most schemes have a seven-year lead time for completion, so that information is vital to the transport industry.
Out of interest, can the Minister name any project that was started and completed in 2001? Most of the projects carried out in the first two years of the Labour Government were in fact holdovers from the outgoing Conservative Government, who agreed them, and no road projects were undertaken for the next two years.
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the Select Committee report have made clear, the question is not just how much money is available, but which

163WH
budget it comes from. At a recent conference, Dennis Roberts, the head of the Road Transport Directorate, quoted some expenditure figures. He said that there was £36 billion for road maintenance, £21 billion for road schemes, £11 billion for light rapid transport and other local transport, £13 billion for buses, coaches and rail rolling stock, £52 billion for rail infrastructure and £25 billion for London. That raises several questions. How and over what time scale will money for road maintenance be allocated and spent? How will the £21 billion for the road schemes, the £11 billion for light rapid transport and the money for buses and rail be allocated? What budget will the money come from?
In paragraph (dd), the Select Committee concluded:
"two years into the Plan, there are still very few details about the results of the multi-modal studies … The Committee recommends that the Government establishes a multi-modal study delivery fund to ensure a co-ordinated approach to delivering the solutions proposed".
Are the Government minded to agree to that request?
In paragraph (ff), the Select Committee points out:
"The Government is over-optimistic about how much private funding will be delivered in the Plan."
I tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that I am not alone in thinking that. The Select Committee was in agreement.
In paragraph (gg), the Select Committee points out very poignantly that
"the current skills shortage is likely to impede delivery of the 10 Year Plan".
The strategic road network excepted, most of the new projects put forward in July 2000 are already behind schedule. The budget for completing the work proposed by the multi-modal studies must be set aside to ensure that the recommended balance of schemes is constructed. That was a request from the Select Committee. Is the Minister minded to agree it?
In the spirit of co-operation and constructive criticism, echoing the conclusions of the excellent Select Committee report, I request that the Government satisfy the need of the travelling public and industry for more details about the plan. That should include timetables for the construction of new projects, greater clarity and transparency and, above all, delivery of their projects. I commend the Select Committee report to the House, and hope to have provoked a more adequate response from the Minister.
4.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the work of the Select Committee and on securing the debate. She not only secures debates directly through her work on the Select Committee on Transport, she even gets the Liaison Committee to secure debates.
As usual, my hon. Friend presented her arguments extremely robustly and powerfully. I believe that that is how things should be in Select Committees. Having served on one, I think that it is quite proper that Select Committees have robust views. Sometimes they
164WH
challenge the Government's views, because that is their role. I do not know why the media were so surprised in the summer when the Select Committee came out with a number of criticisms in its report. Is it not the Select Committee's role to do just that?
The importance of the 10-year plan was widely acclaimed on its publication. The Select Committee report described the 10-year plan as a "crucial step" towards implementing the Government's integrated transport policies. Introducing a long-term investment plan that works across all transport modes was a major step forward. I think that that was recognised both by the Committee and in a number of speeches today. What was needed was a plan that continued beyond a single Government term and a long-term programme that could give the industry the necessary certainty to plan ahead and invest. That is what the 10-year plan gave.
I wish to respond to some of the points made about training and skilled people. The ability to plan in the long term gives companies the opportunity to train people to do the job. We have moved on from the stop-go of the past, when there was no certainty. The plan sets out a programme of more than £180 billion of public and private investment over 10 years. That is an unprecedented commitment in this country. I have heard nobody—certainly in this debate—express the view that long-term planning is bad for transport. The transport industry and those on whom we depend to implement the improvements certainly welcomed the plan. In their delivery plans, they have been able to set out how the investment mentioned in the 10-year plan will be used to deliver the plan's objectives.
Naturally, people will criticise some of the choices. Different people have different priorities, some of which have been reflected in the debate. There will always be difficult choices and differing opinions. However, that is not to say that we tear up the plans and go back to the drawing board every time we hear a criticism.
The plan needs to evolve. We need to take account of events and new pressures, and to review the plan in the light of progress. That is what the Select Committee asked us to do. Its report will be useful, and we are taking careful note of what it says in conducting the current review. I am sure that we all want to achieve the same things. When I read the Select Committee report, as opposed to reading its coverage in the newspapers, I was pleasantly surprised by just how much the Government and the Select Committee seem to agree on. I shall try to pick up the important points raised by those members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised the issue of congestion charging, which, as she said, was provided for in the Transport Act 2000. Of course, we are carefully monitoring how congestion charging unfolds in London. It is up to the Mayor to make the scheme the success that we hope it will be. The detail of what the scheme does is important, but it is also important that local authorities, in conjunction with their communities, work out what sort of scheme they want on the basis of the particular needs in their areas, which they know best.

165WH
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of a rolling programme and regular updates. We will certainly provide those, but we will not contemplate a fundamental rewrite, because that would create more unwelcome uncertainties.
Hon. Members have asked when the progress report will be published. We said that it would be published in the autumn. Climate change has given us a mild autumn this year, so autumn is not yet over, and the report will be published shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich also raised the important matter of the comparison between public and private transport costs, and the plan made certain assumptions about that. In the light of experience, however, those assumptions may be wrong, because several issues, such as the price of oil and the price of cars, are not under the Government's control. Some 20 per cent. of the funding outlined in the plan—vast sums—will go to subsidise public transport.
Mr. Stevenson: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, over the past few years, the cost of public transport has increased by 40 per cent. while the costs of motoring have decreased by 20 per cent. Under the Government's plan, that gap is due to widen over the next 10 years.
Mr. Jamieson: That is exactly why we are providing extra funding to subsidise public transport. Many of the schemes that we have been encouraging as part of the urban and rural bus challenges will help local authorities to meet some of the demands in their areas and to provide services at a reasonable cost.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jamieson: Let me finish answering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson).
Some of that subsidy has been in the form of payments to operators and concessionary fares, which have been welcomed, especially in areas where there were previously no concessions for elderly and disabled people.
Mrs. Dunwoody: What concerns the Select Committee is that that is fundamental to the whole plan, and that if we get it wrong, the rest will not matter. The Department appears to accept that the cost of public transport will increase and the cost of private transport will decrease. If that is so, how does it fit with the objectives of the 10-year plan?
Mr. Jamieson: The ambition of the 10-year plan is to ensure that public transport is more widely used. Bus and rail patronage is growing. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that the multi-modal studies are very much top down. I contest that, because the feedback from those involved in the studies suggests the opposite. They welcomed the chance to work together, with one highways authority working with another, and the Highways Agency and other parties working with the appropriate Government
166WH
offices. That has been welcomed on the ground, and people have regarded the process as bottom up rather than top down.
Mr. Don Foster: I do not want to speak for the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is not in his place, but the Minister should be aware that many local people feel that huge holes were left in the consideration of the south-west multi-modal study. The Minister should be aware that we had to set up a greater Bristol study to fill the huge hole in the previous study.
Mr. Jamieson: If local people did not feel involved, it was the responsibility of local authorities to involve them. The process was being undertaken for the first time and it may have some imperfections, from which we shall learn, but it is wrong to say that it was top down—it was very much bottom up. Those who were best placed to recognise local needs were those on the ground who were most involved in the process.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said that I was biting my nails. I may have been nibbling my fingers as I tried to keep myself awake during his contribution. He referred to the skills shortage, which is very real, and we have been working closely on that with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. It is a problem throughout the transport industry, but that is the result of having such a successful economy and low unemployment. It is difficult to recruit people of quality for the entire transport area and for other industries. That is a by-product of having such a successful economy.
I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but in his assessment of the plan today he at no point told us his party's views. I look forward to hearing about his party's alternatives, either from him or from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Bath is wafting round a large document, which may be a collection of focuses or a plan in embryo.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister will be well aware that the Liberal Democrats published detailed documents about our policies. We are simply delighted that the Government adopted one of our polices in moving from Railtrack to Network Rail. They adopted another with the proposal to reduce the number of rail franchises, and another with regard to the rail regulator and safety regulation. We look forward to many more of our policies being adopted. I am sure that the Minister regularly delves into our documents, because he is forever using our policies.
Mr. Jamieson: We must have powers of clairvoyance if we are adopting Liberal Democrat policies without even seeing them.
Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also referred to aviation, and I noticed his antipathy towards increasing people's ability to fly. We

167WH
take careful note of that, in fact, because several things that he has said in the course of several debates suggest that it is Liberal Democrat policy to reduce people's ability to fly on their holidays. If I have got that wrong, he may like to tell me so.
Tom Brake: I am happy to respond. We have made it clear that, for reasons of sustainability, demand management would be appropriate for aviation. As for Liberal Democrat policy, we are discussing the Select Committee report. If the Minister would like to know what recommendations he should be implementing in relation to the 10-year transport plan, he should look at the recommendations at the back of the report.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman also mentioned congestion charging. He might want to find out whether his Liberal Democrat colleagues on councils are interested in bringing forward proposals for their areas; I am not sure that we have received many from Liberal Democrat councils. If he is enthusiastic about congestion charging, perhaps he will tease some of his colleagues along. He is now going to tell us about the Liberal Democrat councils undertaking such schemes.
Tom Brake: The Select Committee made it very clear that it requires leadership from the Government on the question of congestion charging. The Minister has said that he is monitoring what is happening in relation to London. Is that the leadership that he is providing?
Mr. Jamieson: The Liberal Democrat party talks about devolution. Now the hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government should instruct local authorities to go ahead with congestion charging. If he wants such charging, perhaps he should go back to some of his colleagues on local councils, who, I must say, show rather less enthusiasm for it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will stop barracking for a moment and listen, I shall tell him that Liberal Democrats on councils show less enthusiasm for congestion charging than Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament do. But there we are; we live and learn. Perhaps once the hon. Gentleman has had a little tour around the country and talked to some of his colleagues on councils, he will come back and inform us afresh. He asked about progress on increasing rail freight. In 2001–02—just one year in the 10-year plan—freight increased by 9 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a studied and helpful contribution. He is a breath of fresh air in any debate in which he participates, and he has spoken particularly powerfully on behalf of his constituents. However, in doing so, he also spoke for many others, and he has made a useful speech. He talked about the need for links to ports, which are very important; falling unemployment in his area; and the contribution that good transport systems can play in reducing unemployment and creating investment. He also made a good point about the importance of various Government schemes in his area that have improved employment prospects.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), made a good point about transport and its
168WH
contribution to regeneration in urban areas. In the foreword of the 10-year transport plan, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"The Plan will ensure that transport plays its full part in delivering our wider objectives, contributing in particular to the renaissance of our cities".
A paragraph in chapter 3 referred directly to social exclusion and contained some of the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside used. I shall not labour the point, as the subject has come up a number of times. Paragraph 8.3 says:
"Improvements to the transport network will bring other economic benefits. They will open up new and expanded markets for business generally, stimulating competition and potentially contributing to faster economic growth. Better transport infrastructure can also play a major role in supporting regeneration programmes and access to new jobs, at both regional and local levels."
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South now that I have finished quoting.
Mr. Stevenson: The look on the Minister's face betrays his knowledge of the provocation. If what he says is so, why does the Strategic Rail Authority show through its approach that it does not have the first idea about economic regeneration?
Mr. Jamieson: What I am saying, through the quotation, is that the Government think that improvements in our transport system are vital to regeneration. That is our confirmed view. I was not at yesterday's hearing, but I shall look very carefully at the contributions that were made. If there is any more joining up of various sections of government to be done, debates such as this are always helpful.
Mrs. Ellman: I note with pleasure the commitment to include social inclusion in transport and regeneration plans, but can the Minister tell me when the Government will approve Mersey tram's line 1?
Mr. Jamieson: If my hon. Friend could be a little patient, I shall come to that. Who knows? There might be good news for her. I want to finish replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and I shall then answer her question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to his surveys of businesses' views on the A12, soon to be de-trunked. I am pleased to see the work that he has done and the interest that he is taking on a matter of such great importance to his constituency, and I assure him that de-trunking in no way inhibits a local authority from including in its local transport plans further improvements to such a road.
My hon. Friend also mentioned bypasses. Where bypasses are appropriate and meet all our targets, and will improve local traffic and conditions for people living in congested areas, such as narrow villages, the bypass programme will go forward. His point on bypasses was well made. He asked us to keep an eye on his local schemes; in fact, he will not allow us to take our eye off them, because he is a regular correspondent with the Department and often catches my ear around this House. He also mentioned multi-modal studies and the importance of regional balance. We share his concerns on those matters.

169WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is a very distinguished and valued member of the Select Committee, and has made a considerable contribution to the House over a very long period. Few of us could aspire to make a contribution of the quality that he has made over the years. He said that he hoped that we would view the report's criticisms positively. That is how I see them, as my opening remarks made clear. He rightly quoted David Begg's comments on the stick and the carrot. We want to improve public transport, but my hon. Friend also mentioned restraints on the private motor car and the cost of the car as against public transport—the point that I have just made.
My hon. Friend's most powerful points were those about social inclusion—points that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside also made powerfully. Yes, of course our plans must focus nationally and, particularly, at local level on including some of the people who have no access to the private motor car. Some 40 per cent. of my constituents have no access to private motor cars. Outside London and the south-east, it is often the bus, rather than the railway, that is important to such people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will know that we have made many more resources available, for example through the urban bus challenge. We allocated £46 million to the scheme between 2001–02 and 2003–04. Looking at the schemes that have been approved under the urban bus challenge, it is interesting to see how many are using funding to assist people with poor access to transport in general. The schemes are helping people in outlying areas where jobs have disappeared and where transport is needed to access jobs that have appeared elsewhere. Schemes have also been set up to get people to health centres and hospitals and to help people with disabilities. The demand bus is perhaps more appropriate in the more outlying and scattered places around the suburbs and in rural areas. I noticed that Stoke-on-Trent was one of the winners in the 2001 competition and received nearly £750,000 for its dial-a-ride service, which was welcome to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister share my view that subsidies, no matter where they come from—whether from local transport plans, the urban bus challenge or elsewhere—cannot in themselves solve the problem? Does he agree that the bus companies involved should take a more proactive view of marketing, risk taking and developing networks, and should regard subsidies as a starting point rather than an open-ended commitment whereby money is poured in and nothing really develops?
Mr. Jamieson: Indeed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering with others how we can make better use of subsidies for routes that, although insignificant in terms of profit making, are vital to certain communities. We are very much aware of the issue, and my right hon. Friend will make known the group's thoughts in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside made a thoughtful contribution in which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, she spoke powerfully on behalf of her constituents. I felt that she spoke also
170WH
for mine and for those of many other hon. Members. She recognises many of the improvements that have been made, and I am grateful to her for that. She spoke powerfully about social exclusion issues, which are desperately important to her in relation to her constituency. Great strides are being made in her area. When I visited it some years ago as a member of a Select Committee—the then Select Committee on Education—I saw many of the great challenges that it faced, and I was impressed by some of the work that was being done in the public services. I was struck by the importance of good-quality transport links in creating regeneration, getting people back to work and bringing new hope to communities that had completely abandoned hope. In the years when the Conservative party was in power, people entirely abandoned any ambition to work again or to have aspirations for themselves and their families. Transport plays a vital part in such regeneration. In my hon. Friend's area, as in other large cities and conurbations, people find bus services terribly important—probably more so than rail services. As she knows, local transport plans in her area have almost doubled in recent years, which gives the transport authority the extra funding that it needs to meet its ambitions.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: In a moment. I want to deal with my hon. Friend's question about the Mersey tram. I can tell my hon. Friend that since 2001 we have approved light rail lines in Nottingham, Manchester, south Hampshire and Leeds, and that we are carefully considering the scheme in which she has a great interest. An announcement may not be too far away.
Mrs. Ellman: Can the Minister give me an assurance on when the announcement will be made and what it will be? We should not like to be kept waiting for an announcement only to find that it was not what we wanted to hear.
Mr. Jamieson: In the privacy of this Chamber—I am sure that no-one from outside is listening—I can tell my hon. Friend that she will not have to wait much longer for the decision, and that it will have been informed by the powerful representations that she and other hon. Friends from Liverpool have made.
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. I should advise the Minister that our proceedings are being broadcast.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I thought that we were having a private session. I am grateful to you, because I have not yet announced the decision; perhaps I was wise to be cautious in my choice of words.
Miss McIntosh: Given that there appears to be cross-party support on the importance of bus services in urban and rural areas—particularly in relation to that dreaded expression "social exclusion"—will the Minister respond to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which noted that the target of a 10 per cent. increase in bus use was not sufficiently ambitious?
Mr. Jamieson: All I can say is that it is probably more ambitious than any of the Conservative party's plans for

171WH
the bus service. If it is not ambitious enough, it can be revised upwards. At the moment, it appears that we will more than meet the target and if we surpass it, we will be extremely pleased.
The hon. Member for Bath asked a number of questions. I have to say again that he did not say much about his own policies or ideas. The Liberal Democrats talk of their great ambitions, but, on the Floor of the House, they have opposed just about every means of raising the funds to achieve those ambitions.
Mr. Don Foster: Name one example.
Mr. Jamieson: Well, they have reacted in that way to just about every ambition and Bill relating to budgets. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his party have opposed most of them.
Mr. Foster: May I formally ask the Minister to name one vote when the Liberal Democrats opposed money going into public transport? Then his reply will be on the record.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was asked in this Chamber how much extra money the Liberal Democrats would invest in transport. He said that they would not invest any because it would be going into education. He said that that was where the 1p would be going.
Mr. Foster: Name one.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman says name one. It is all very well having ambitions, but the Liberal Democrats have no means of achieving those ambitions because they do not have the funding. It is all promised.
Mr. Foster rose—
Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way again because I want to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other questions. He said that the numbers that we quoted on funding were smoke and mirrors. I do not want to enter into that discussion with him again. The plan sets out clearly how the £180 billion is made up. He knows that it includes £130 billion of public expenditure; it also includes £121 billion of capital investment. That is a real-terms increase of 75 per cent. over the previous 10 years.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—I was wondering where all her friends were, but I am sure that they are engaged with other things—has a great interest in transport. That is apparent from the number of interests that she declared.
Miss McIntosh: At least I declared them.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, the hon. Lady quite properly declared them. She asked again about the progress report. As I said, the ambition is to have it before Christmas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked whether the Conservatives would
172WH
meet our spending plans—that was the first of the three tests that we had for the hon. Lady—but he never got an answer. The Liberal Democrats never answer that question either. Had the hon. Lady given an answer, I am sure that she would not have cleared it with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). There may be inadequacies in the report and things that we want changed, but we have to remind ourselves that it would not be happening at all if we were not putting funding in. None of these things would have been happening under the Conservatives.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to put in a bid for three hours to discuss other parties' policies. I thought that we were here to discuss the conclusions of the report. Will he respond to my request to name one infrastructure project for 2001?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady will know that some infrastructure projects take more than a year. We have announced many of them. I have been to a number of very large new developments on roads in some of her hon. Friends' constituencies. Those developments have been welcomed by her hon. Friends, one of whom was extremely pleased to see me announcing in Norfolk a large new programme for a bypass and improvements in her constituency. We also announced the Selby bypass, which is not all that far away from the hon. Lady's constituency, and a scheme around the City of York on the fringes of her constituency that will greatly improve safety and the flow of traffic from her constituency into the City of York.
The hon. Lady asked about the rail accident investigation board. I do not know whether she fell asleep during the Queen's Speech, but it was announced then. If she wanders through the Speech again, she will find reference to the RAIB.
The problems with transport in recent years were the result of the recent economic success—1.5 million more people are now in work who want to travel to work and for leisure—and decades of under-investment. We cannot turn around those decades of under-investment in only a few years. We know that prosperity increases people's need and desire to travel—the history of the 20th century is an excellent example of that. Economic success is no bad thing; no one would argue against it, but it imposes even greater pressures on our transport system.
The Government's role is to help people to travel, not to inhibit them. We inherited a transport system that had suffered from decades of under-investment and stop-go funding. The 10-year plan contains the long-term certainty, which has been recognised across the board by organisations that provide transport in this country, that the necessary funding is in place.
The plan provides an overarching framework that sets out our objectives for reliable, safe and accessible transport, concerns about which were raised poignantly in the debate today, and for transport that has less impact on the environment but supports a strong economy. We have targets to reduce congestion, improve the reliability and punctuality of the rail network, increase rail and bus use, and reduce the numbers of those who are killed and seriously injured on our roads.

173WH
It is important to remember that our 10-year plan is, in essence, a framework investment programme—something that has been overlooked in the discussion of the plan. The plan did not purport to set out detailed projects and schemes, which are often matters for individual delivery agents and agencies such as the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency and, in many cases, highways authorities through their local transport plans. Nor did it purport to set out or reproduce the whole of the Government's transport policies, which are set out in a wide range of policy papers that began with the original integrated Transport White Paper in 1998. The road safety strategy is an example. We published it just a couple of months before the publication of the 10-year plan.
Work is being done in a wide range of areas not covered by the plan. For example, we are working on environmental policy at European level. There are European Union directives and agreements on improving fuel efficiency and vehicle emission standards. Other parts of our transport strategy contribute to and complement the 10-year plan. We are now focusing on delivering the improvements set out in the plan, and will shortly publish a report on the progress that we have made in that regard.
Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for generously giving way. When will he publish the investment announcement on one project in the 10-year plan? We all agree that the objectives have been set out, but when will he give the details that the industry seeks?
Mr. Jamieson: I am not sure to what the hon. Lady is referring. There is no end to the projects that have been announced through the local transport plans. Some of them will be developed through the multi-modal studies. We have examined the first tranche and are now considering the second, which will unfold over time.
The hon. Lady is stuck in the past—the days of the Conservative Government when quick fixes were fashionable—but we are talking about long-term planning, even beyond the 10-year period. Eventually, the aviation White Paper will be published, looking 30 years forward.
The 10-year plan remains a major achievement and has been widely welcomed. The Chairman of the Select Committee acknowledged it as a crucial step in delivering our transport policies. The investment is in place; our task is now to deliver real improvements to our transport system. That is precisely what we are doing.
5.16 pm
Mrs. Dunwoody: With the leave of the Chamber, Mr. Butterfill.
The Minister is such an engaging fellow, full of charm and intelligent and caring thought, which makes it difficult to disagree with him. I used the technique myself as a junior Minister: when in doubt, always be nice to everyone—[Interruption.] Well, pretend to be. However, I must tell the Minister that this report will come back and hit the Department hard again and again. "Monitoring" is the new phrase, so our Select Committee will be monitoring the development of the Department's transport policy.
174WH
We have not yet heard how the Government will react to one fundamental problem. If they set aside all the other problems because they will be dealt with by the multi-modal studies or other plans, they will still have to address the fundamental question: if it is and remains cheaper to travel by motor car, how will the Government secure the movement towards public transport that they need to deal with environmental and transport problems? That is so central to all our arguments that we should have been more honest about it today. Unless the Government face that problem honestly, it will be a trap into which they continually fall.
The Government have not succeeded in giving many independent agencies a clear commitment to deal with the people who are lowly and dispossessed in transport terms. We can talk about social exclusion, but for the people concerned it means no access to doctors' surgeries, no way of fetching urgent shopping, no going out to the cinema or seeing friends in the evening, and no way to deal with the constant problem of coping with the practical difficulties of living on one's own. Under a Labour Government, we should not merely talk about social exclusion or view combating it as an ideal; we should insist that ending social exclusion is the top priority for those who plan railway and other transport services. We should not allow it to sink gently below the horizon. The problem will continue unless the Government are more brutal in insisting on the priorities that the various agencies must have.
I do not want to appear ungracious. I know that the Minister is genuinely committed to making the system work. He wants to ensure that buses, railways and even aviation operate in a way that will benefit us economically and improve the quality of life of the people we represent.
In closing, I shall say what I think the Minister should do and what I expect him to do. If he does not do it I may want to remind him about it in the near future. The review of the 10-year plan is supposed to be published in December. We can call it autumn—it would be a rather elongated autumn—or winter, but nevertheless I understand that the Department's review will be published next month. This is what it should contain. On interim targets, the review should not just be a list of schemes that are wanted. It should not be a wish list; it must contain targets so that we, the ordinary people concerned with transport, can judge whether the policies are working.
On rail, the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority have both made it clear that we cannot afford the schemes that are anticipated in the 10-year plan. The money is not there and some of the decisions taken so far will rebound badly on the plans for the future.
A consultation is being undertaken on raising fares. How does that fit in with the argument about the difference between the costs of private and public transport? The impact of all those problems must be made clear in the review if we are to know what the Government's plans are for the future.
On smaller measures, we should accept that many of the major schemes will not be built, at least not until the end of the 10-year plan. We were given evidence to that effect: so much is backloaded that we will not see the results for a long time. The Department should

175WH
concentrate on local measures, especially for buses, and be much more ambitious. The Government acknowledge that the target of 10 per cent. growth for buses will lead to a decline outside London by 2010. That is not in the interests of the ordinary traveller or those whom we have been talking about so much this afternoon, who need our support to change their lives.
I believe that the Government are serious. They are the first for a long time to come up with an attempt at an integrated policy. That is why I ask them to make it clear that they are not just committed, that they do not just have a series of wish lists, that they are not prepared just to say, "Because we are good fellows, trust us and we will do something in the future." I ask the Government to do something far more focused, far more positive and, in the final analysis, much more satisfying: in
176WH
December to print a simple list, not of what they would like to do but what they are going to do; not of the things that they cannot do, but of what they think is important. Above all, I ask them to explain to those who work in rail, aviation and road planning that every one of them has a role that is much wider than simply balancing their books and making sure that they can defend a list of advances over the next 10-year period. If we fail in this important respect, it will not just be the Government who are made to pay, but all those who have for years called for a workable transport system, because the parliamentary system will no longer be seen as capable of developing those things that are important and those services that matter. Above all, we will have failed those whom we most want to serve. That is too high a price to pay.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Five o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Planning Application
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what the policy is of the Church Commissioners on the division of costs arising from an ecclesiastical court hearing into a planning application to site a mobile phone mast in a church spire. [82840]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners have no involvement in decisions made in parishes about whether or not to site an aerial within a church building, or in determining responsibility for related costs.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Built Heritage
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to organise support for the built heritage sector; and if she will make a statement. [83756]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, published its policy on the built heritage in "A Force for our Future" in December 2001. This was informed by "Power of Place", a review of the historic environment by the sector. We are now working closely with the sector to deliver this challenging agenda.

  Funding Councils
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the performance of the funding councils for the performing and visual arts and for film; and if she will make a statement. [83760]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the Chairman of the Arts Council, Gerry Robinson, and Baroness Blackstone as Minister of State for the Arts, has regular meetings with the Chief Executive, Peter Hewitt. In July the Secretary of State announced additional funding for the Arts Council reflecting her confidence in the restructuring of the Arts funding system currently taking place.

  When the Film Council was established in April 2000, it was set 13 goals for film which had been identified in the course of the Film Policy Review (1998). These goals have formed the basis of the Film Council's funding agreement with the Department. Progress against the funding agreement is reviewed regularly. In addition,
  374W
  both the Secretary of State and I, as Minister for film, have met the Chair and Chief Executive of the Film Council on other occasions to discuss performance.

  The Film Council has already made significant progress in delivering many of its goals, and I warmly welcome Sir Alan Parker's speech given earlier this month setting out the Film Council's vision for the future of the British film industry.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of production was of the annual report 2002 of the National Endowment for Science and Technology; how many reports were produced; and if she will make a statement. [83779]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost of producing NESTA's annual report 2002 was £48,885 (excluding VAT) and 5,000 copies were produced.

  Performing Arts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the New Audiences programme; and if she will make a statement. [83736]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of England who have been administering the programme since its inception. The programme does not finish until the end of this year and a full evaluation will be made by ACE in 2003.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of her Department's contribution to enabling access to the performing arts in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83738]

  Dr. Howells
  The grant-in-aid figures for the Arts Council for each of the above years was as follows:1998–99 £189.9 million; 1999–2000 £228.2 million; 2000–01 £237.2 million and 2001–02 £252.2 million. In July this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a further substantial increase in my Department's funding for the arts for 2004–05 to 2005–06. As a result of this Government funding for the arts will be £412 million in 2005–06, or 73 per cent, higher in real terms than in 1997–98.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her statement on 15 November,Official Report, column 336, what the basis was of her statement that 5,000 school playing fields were sold off between 1979 and 1997; and how many school playing fields have been sold since 1997. [82408]

  Tessa Jowell
  No data were collected centrally on how many school playing fields there were in either 1979 or 1997. My estimate of about 5,000 playing fields comes from two sources. First, the Central Council of Physical Recreation published a paper in 1984 "Sports Fields at Risk", which indicated that some 3,630 areas of recreation land recorded on Land Registers were at risk
  375W
  of disposal. A more meaningful way of quantifying the area under threat at that time is to translate this figure into about 5,000 school playing fields of sports pitch size.

  Second, the then Department for Education and Employment estimated that an average 40 playing fields a month were sold subsequent to the previous Government encouraging the disposal of playing fields in April 1996 by relaxing the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations. Even if disposals had been running at only half this rate from 1979–1997, the total would have approached 5,000 disposals.

  Data collected under this Government were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on 10 June this year, Official Report, column 1006W.

  Public Libraries (Internet Access)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many internet connections there were in public libraries in the UK in(a) 1998 and (b) 2002; what proportion of public libraries in the UK had internet connections in June 2002; and if she will make a statement. [83751]

  Dr. Howells
  The £120 million lottery funded programme to connect public libraries in the UK to the Internet and provide ICT training for all library staff is proceeding well. In June 2002 there were 2,909 libraries connected to the internet and offering public access compared to just 215 libraries in 1998. This means that 70 per cent, of all UK libraries were online as of June 2002. The programme is expected to fulfil its original target of connecting libraries, wherever practical, to the internet by the end of 2002.

  Tourism Revenue (Euro Entry)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact which the UK's retention of the pound in preference to entering the Eurozone has had on tourist revenue; and if he will make a statement. [84099]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 751W.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carrier Programmes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with US and British companies on the design and procurement of the aircraft carrier in relation to the carrier-borne aircraft. [83225]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the course of normal project development for the United Kingdom's Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) and Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programmes, numerous discussions have taken place between British and American companies. Lockheed Martin, the contractor for the United States Joint Strike Fighter programme, is also a member of both teams 376W
  competing for the CVF project, which are led by BAE SYSTEMS and Thales. Personnel from the CVF project team also maintain contact with their opposite numbers in the US carrier programme.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [81882]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Any additional costs to the Ministry of Defence 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.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, regarding his answer of 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 168W, concerning the disposal of the Gunwharf and HMS Vernon site in Portsmouth to Barclay Homes. [83819]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have replied today and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals there are to privatise the Defence Fire Service; and who would have control of the service if there were a major crisis. [83227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Airfield Support Services Project (ASSP) is seeking to achieve the most viable and cost effective solution for the provision of airfield support service to the Ministry of Defence world-wide with options that include both Public Private Partnership and in house solutions. There is also a complementary work stream, Fire Study 2000, that has looked specifically at the organisation and operation of the Defence Fire Service, which is to inform the Public Sector Comparator for ASSP.

  Bids from the three consortia involved in ASSP were received at the end of April and are now being evaluated. Main Gate approval is currently planned for the second half of 2003. No decisions have been taken at this stage. Whatever solution is taken forward, we would ensure that we preserve our ability to manage crisis situations.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of magnetic profiling in searching for unexploded ordnance at military training areas; [83704]

  (2) whether his Department uses (a) Global Positioning System and (b) magnetometry scanning methods in surveying unexploded ordnance at military training grounds; [83707]
  377W
  (3) what geophysical instrumentation the British army uses in clean-up operations at military training grounds. [83708]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has had, for a number of years, a magnetic profiling capability which is widely recognised as an effective method of establishing the degree of contamination within an area of land. The British Army does not currently employ geophysical instrumentation in ordnance clearance operations at military training grounds as it is not considered to provide the degree of accuracy required for the location of smaller types of ordnance. The Ministry of Defence currently possesses both Global Positioning System and magnetometry scanning capabilities. It is planned that more advanced equipment will be introduced in the next training year which will provide improved information on the presence of UXO within a given area.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has the capability to carry out airborne surveys of military training sites to detect(a) exploded and (b) unexploded ordnance. [83356]

  Mr. Ingram
  Although we do not possess equipment designed specifically to detect unexploded ordnance from the air, the Ministry of Defence has used high-resolution photographic reconnaissance imagery to assist in explosive ordnance disposal work.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hectares per day the British army clears of unexploded ordnance when they carry out clearing operations in Archers Post, Kenya. [83705]

  Mr. Ingram
  Every British army unit conducting live firing activities on Archers Post conducts, on their completion, a clearance operation designed to ensure that all unexploded ordnance has, as far as possible, been marked and destroyed. In addition, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron of the Royal Engineers undertakes Exercise Pineapple annually in Kenya. The historical average, over the four-week period of the exercise, is that an area of up to three square kilometres is cleared, though this is subject to variation.

  McKinsey and Company
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has commissioned from McKinsey and Company in the past four years. [80973]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since September 1998, Ministry of Defence records indicate that four contracts have been let to McKinsey and Company to produce the following reports:

  Consultancy support for the Smart Procurement Initiative.

  Support to Equipment Capability Customer Development.

  Re-energising the Ministry of Defence Change Programme—

  Assessment of Defence Information Infrastructure.

  Re-energising the Ministry of Defence Change Programme—

  Review and Adjust the DLO Business Change Programme.

  Medical Manning and Retention Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets have been set in relation to his commitment to implement the recommendations of the Medical Manning and Retention Review; if he will publish(a)
  378W
  the Review recommendations and (b) the proposed pay scales for personnel in the Defence Medical Services; and if he will make a statement. [83467]

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

  Military Vehicle Contracts
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which firms are bidding for military vehicle contracts; and what is(a) the size of their work force and (b) the country in which they are based. [81694]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current competitions for military vehicles include(a) HILLS (High Velocity Missile, Improved Medium Mobility, Lightweight Mobile Launcher, Shoulder Launch System) (b) Wheeled Tankers (c) Cargo Tracks and Wheeled Recovery Vehicles and (d) The Future Command Liaison Vehicle. I am withholding information relating to proposed purchases for Special Forces use under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers defence, security and international relations.

  Project

  Company

  Workforce1

  Country in which company based

  HILLS

  Automotive Technik Ltd.

  Under 250

  UK

  Wheeled tankers

  Marshall Specialist Vehicle Ltd.

  Under 500

  UK

  Wheeled tankers

  Oshkosh Truck Corporation

  Under 250

  USA

  Support vehicles

  Oshkosh Truck Corporation

  Under 250

  USA

  Support vehicles

  Stewart & Stevenson TV

  Under 250

  USA

  Support vehicles

  MAN Truck & Bus UK Ltd.

  2Under 2,000

  UK

  Support vehicles

  Mercedes- Benz UK Defence

  3—

  UK

  FCLV

  Alvis Specialist Vehicles4

  500

  UK

  FCLV

  UDLP

  —

  5USA

  FCLV

  VDS

  500

  UK

  1 Approximate UK work force numbers

  2 Includes ERF Ltd. work force

  3 Figure not available

  4 Alvis have taken over VDS but at present there is a "Chinese wall" between the two competing components

  5 UDLP are setting up a base in the UK. US work force numbers are 5,000

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times he has visited east Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82403]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.
  379W

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will offer saliva tests to assess the extent of exposure to radiation experienced by British Service personnel and medical auxiliaries present at atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. [84258]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 408W to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the longest gap was between the submission of a written question in the last parliamentary session and his Department providing(a) a substantive reply, (b) a holding reply and (c) a "will write" response. [83252]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministers aim to answer named day written questions on the day named and ordinary written questions within five working days.

  Young Recruits
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has taken on whether the limitation of the right of under 18-year-olds to leave the armed forces if they consider that they have made a mistaken decision to join is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. [83233]

  Dr. Moonie
  All three services operate schemes which enable under 18-year-olds to leave the armed forces if they consider that they have made a mistaken decision to join. These schemes were not introduced as a consequence of the Human Rights Act 1998, and indeed the Royal Navy and Army schemes for 'unhappy under-18s' predate it. However, in common with other personnel policies, the schemes remain under review by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that they comply with extant legislation. The Ministry of Defence's position is that schemes do not in any way contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, given that under-18s, all of whom enter the amed forces voluntarily under their own informed will, have ample rights and opportunities to leave before reaching age 18.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advertising and Public Awareness
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advertising campaigns and public awareness campaigns have been undertaken by his Department in each year since 1997, and what the cost was of each company. [83415]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was set up on 29 May 2002. Since then the Office has undertaken two advertising and public awareness campaigns: one for fire safety under the title 'Make Your Plan Get Out Alive' at a cost of £2.4m; and one to remind the general public to be extra vigilant about fire 380W
  safety during the current industrial action by the Fire Brigades' Union, under the title 'Get out, stay out and call 999' with a budget of up to £1.8m.

  For the total budget for the 'Fire Kills' campaign in this fiscal year, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on Tuesday 5 November 2002, Official Report, Hansard (column 196W).

  The spend on the fire safety campaign in previous years is as follows:

  Year

  Activity

  Sponsoring Dept

  2001/02

  Excuses kill (Smoke Alarms £1.7m). Cigarette Safety £1.95m

  DTLR

  2000/01

  Fire Action Plan £3.3m

  Home Office

  1999/2000

  Chip Pan safety £2.4m

  Home Office

  1998/99

  General Fire safety £800K

  Home Office

  1997/98

  Figures not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost

  Home Office

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has further to encourage use of brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement. [83418]

  Mr. McNulty
  National planning policies encourage the reuse of suitable brownfield sites. Through Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) we have introduced new measures, including an urban brownfields first policy, to meet the country's housing needs in the most sustainable way. Planning policies for land recycling are backed by a package of fiscal measures to secure the regeneration and renewal of communities worth £1 billion over 5 years.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to help with match funding in areas that receive Objective 2 funding. [83388]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are a large number of potential sources of match funding in Objective 2 areas. In addition to central Government programmes such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, other sources are also available including the RDA single pot, local authorities, voluntary and community sector and private sector sources also provide match funding. A publication listing out the many sources of match funding is widely circulated by Government Offices.

  Clearly as and when new Government programmes are introduced, they can provide additional sources of match funding for projects.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many emergency calls in the last 12 months to fire brigades were related to(a) fires and (b) other incidents. [83254]
  381W
  Mr. Leslie
  In 2000, the last year for which data are available, of the 1,135,000 emergency calls attended by UK fire brigades, 476,000 (42 per cent.) were related to fires and 658,000 (58 per cent.) were related to other incidents.

  The other incidents category comprises false fire alarms (460,000 or 41 per cent, of all emergency calls) and special services incidents, including road traffic accidents and lift rescues (198,000 or 17 per cent of all emergency calls).

  The figures shown here differ very slightly from those given in answers to two earlier parliamentary questions (Official Report, 21 October 2002, column 59W and Official Report, 19 November 2002, column 84W), as the Scottish Executive has subsequently supplied revised special service incident figures for financial year 2000–01.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) statutory and (b) other role fire brigades have in relation to (i) risk reduction and risk management in relation to non-fire emergencies, (ii) community fire safety and fire reductions, (iii) fire safety enforcement and (iv) emergency preparedness against terrorist, biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear threats. [83255]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The roles that fire authorities have in relation to the activities listed include:

  (i) Under section 3(l)(e) of the Fire Services Act 1947 a fire authority may "employ the fire brigade maintained by them, or use any equipment so maintained, for purposes other than fire-fighting purposes for which it appears to the authority to be suitable …". In the exercise of this power fire authorities take into account the deployment of resources to manage and reduce risk in relation to non-fire emergencies.

  (ii) Among other duties of fire authorities under section 1(1) of the 1947 Act, section l(l)(f) makes it a duty to secure "efficient arrangements for the giving, when requested, of advice in respect of buildings and other property in the area of the fire authority as to fire prevention, restricting the spread of fires, and means of escape in case of fire". In addition, authorities undertake on a non-statutory basis such activities as fire safety education, community-based risk assessments, arson reduction initiatives and smoke alarm installation programmes.

  (iii) Fire authorities currently enforce the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 as amended by the Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. Under the 1971 Act fire authorities are empowered to issue fire certificates that relate to categories of premises designated by the Secretary of State in two orders. The first covers hotels and boarding houses and the second deals with factories, offices, shops and railway premises Under the 1997 Regulations, as amended, fire authorities are empowered to assess the adequacy of the fire risk assessment made by an employer in respect of the employer's premises. Fire authorities are also consulted on the adequacy of fire precautions by local authorities, which are the enforcing authorities for licensing purposes and in respect of houses in multiple occupation.

  382W

  (iv) The Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993 give the metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, including the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the function of assisting the boroughs in their emergency planning arrangements, specifically by assisting with training and exercises. The Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999 places fire and civil defence authorities under a duty to prepare and maintain emergency plans to deal with the off-site effects of a major accident. Fire authorities generally participate in co-ordinating emergency response with other agencies. In addition, under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department of Health in January 2002, fire authorities were encouraged to secure effective co-operation with health service agencies on mass decontamination: each fire authority was asked to draw up a local agreement facilitating the delegation of operations from the local ambulance service.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is his policy that fire resources should be co-ordinated on a regional or sub-regional basis. [83256]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire services are provided locally by 50 fire authorities in England and Wales. We actively encourage wider collaboration, both between fire authorities and with other emergency services.

  The Independent Review of the Fire Service under the chairmanship of Professor Sir George Bain will, as part of its terms of reference, inquire into and make recommendations on the future organisation and management of the fire service. We await the report which Sir George hopes to be able to publish in December 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent firemen's strike. [82219]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made statements to the House on 22 October,Official Report, column 125, 14 November 2002, Official Report, column 140, 21 November, Official Report, columns 885–86 and 26 November 2002, Official Report, columns 165–68. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will keep the House of Commons fully informed.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the terms of reference for the Bain Review of the Fire Service took into account the findings of the Pathfinder trials; and if he will make a statement. [82452]
  383W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Yes. The terms of reference of the Independent Review of the Fire Service require it, among other things, to inquire into and make recommendations on the future organisation and management of the Fire Service to undertake the full range of responsibilities that are appropriate to it; to enable it to respond effectively to all the operational demands that may be placed upon it; and to enable the responsibilities of the Fire Service to be delivered with optimum efficiency and effectiveness.

  The Fire Service needs to take an integrated approach to reducing and mitigating the risks from fires and other emergencies. Pathfinder trials have been undertaken in 11 brigades to develop working procedures and to assess the practicality and cost of implementing risk-based fire cover and greater flexibility of response. The findings of the trials have been made available to the Review.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of fire cover requirements where the risk to life is rated higher than that to property, before establishing the Pathfinder trials. [82454]

  Mr. Leslie
  No such assessment could be made. The Pathfinder trials were commissioned to see what would be involved in practice in moving to a risk-based system of fire cover. The methods of risk assessment were developed as part of the trials, not before.

  Local Government (Parishes)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures have been taken to strengthen the parish tier of local government. [83508]

  Mr. Leslie
  Recent measures to strengthen the parish tier of local government include:increasing the amount local councils can spend per elector under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, on matters that will have a direct benefit on their communities, from £3.50 to £5.00;
  £2 million Government funding over three years to help the Countryside Agency and NALC develop a national training strategy for parish councillors and clerks;
  reducing the accounting and audit burden on parishes following the introduction of the "lighter touch" audit;
  the introduction of a new ethical framework, including new codes of conduct to promote the highest standards of conduct in parish and town councils; anda wide-ranging consultation on proposals for a Quality Parish and Town Council scheme which we are now working with NALC and others to establish.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has issued on the remuneration of parish clerks. [83507]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not issued any guidance on the remuneration of parish clerks, which is a matter for each local council.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for parish councils; and if he will make a statement. [83411]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister assisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and I are responsible for policy and legislation on English parish 384W
  and town councils. We share these responsibilities with our Right Honourable and Honourable Friends who have responsibility for those service and policy objectives which parish councils can help to deliver.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many mobile phone masts have been constructed in England and Wales, in each year since 1997 in each local authority area. [83412]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold the information requested centrally.

  However, all mobile phone antennas are registered with the Radiocommunications Agency. Information on the location and ownership of the antennas is available on the Agency's Site Finder database at www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk The site is updated every three months.

  Public Highways
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what procedure an applicant must undertake to seek the permanent closure of areas of the public highway to prevent use by motorised vehicles; and what action is open to opponents to seek to prevent such an order being granted. [82466]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him today (PQ ref. 82465).

  Referendums
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the use of public funds to support campaigns for(a) referendums on regional government and (b) a particular outcome in a referendum campaign. [83847]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is a matter for the Electoral Commission under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (sections 108–110 and schedule 12); or, if pertaining to a local authority publicity campaign relating to regional referendums, a matter for the Code on Local Authority Publicity which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has issued under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of the headquarters for a regional government in the North West of England; and what the breakdown of this sum is broken down by budget heads. [83786]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government has made no estimate of the cost of a headquarters for a regional government in the North West of England. As paragraph 6.7 of the Government's White Paper on Regional Governance says, it will be for an assembly to decide on the best way to meet its accommodation requirements, including the location of its headquarters.
  385W
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of the initial start-up costs of regional government in the North West of England; and what the breakdown of this sum is broken down by main budget heads. [83787]

  Mr. Leslie
  The costs of establishing elected regional assemblies will vary from region to region, mainly because of different sizes of their electorates. We expect them all to fall in a range around £15 million to £30 million a region, including the costs of a referendum and of the first assembly elections. The North West is likely to fall towards the upper end of this range.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) holding and (b) promoting a referendum on regional government in the North West of England. [83788]

  Mr. Leslie
  Paragraph 69 of the Explanatory Notes to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill says that the cost of a referendum may range from about £2m in the North East to about £6m in the South East.

  With regard to the costs associated with the promotion of a referendum in the North West, that would be a matter for the Electoral Commission under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (sections 108–110 and schedule 12); or, if pertaining to a local authority publicity campaign relating to regional referendums, a matter for the Code on Local Authority Publicity which my Rt. Hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has issued under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administrative costs of(a) regional development agencies, (b) government offices for the regions and (c) regional chambers were, in each region in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [83815]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Regional Development Agencies' administrative costs for 2000–01 and 2001–02, together with estimates for 2002–03, are set out in the following table:

  Thousand

  RDAs administrative costs

  2000–01 spend

  2001–02 spend

  2002–03 forecast expenditure

  North East

  10,463

  11,603

  16,722

  North West

  14,476

  15,004

  19,921

  Yorkshire

  8,284

  10,354

  14,750

  East Midlands

  7,213

  7,488

  10,467

  West Midlands

  8,352

  9,083

  13,500

  East

  4,710

  5,925

  7,245

  South East

  6,343

  7,143

  12,839

  South West

  8,380

  9,099

  13,975

  London

  5,354

  9,805

  14,044

  386W
  (b) The Government Offices' administrative costs for 2000–01 and 2001–02, together with estimates for 2002–03, are set out in the following table:

  GO

  2000–01 spend

  2001–02 spend

  2002–03 forecast expenditure

  North East

  8,197.33

  8,973.88

  8,658.69

  North West

  13,651.03

  15,250.91

  13,852.48

  Yorkshire and Humber

  9,357.21

  9,889.50

  9,520.69

  West Midlands

  9,960.77

  10,315.96

  9,213.41

  East Midlands

  7,335.77

  8,200.80

  7,395.22

  East

  7,542.50

  8,532.82

  7,704.08

  South East

  9,477.27

  10,309.34

  9,249.80

  South West

  8,711.39

  10,671.85

  9,418.63

  London

  13,860.98

  13,175.10

  12,215.67

  Totals

  88,094.25

  95,320.16

  87,228.67

  (c) Regional Chambers are not Government bodies. They receive funding from a variety of sources, primarily the participating local authorities. The Government have agreed to provide a contribution towards their costs for the next three years, starting in 2002–03. This equates to £600,000 per Chamber— £15 million in total across all the regions over the three year period.

  Regional Planning
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the likely effect of the draft Regional Planning Guidance on the Warrington area; and if he will make a statement. [83892]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North West were published in May 2002, and the closing date for comments was 16 August 2002, 201 organisations responded to the consultation, and a total of 1.825 individual comments were made on the whole of Draft RPG Of this total, 38 comments were on the Warrington area. Organisations that responded included the North West Development Agency, North West Regional Assembly, Warrington Borough Council, Council for the Protection of Rural England, and the Omega Joint Venture Partnership.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the number of second homes claiming a council tax discount in each local authority area in(a) Devon, (b) Cornwall, (c) Somerset and (d) Dorset. [82969]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following tables set out the number of second homes (defined as furnished and no-one's main residence) entitled to the 50 per cent, council tax discount as at November 2001, as reported by local authorities.

  Some authorities have been unable to report reliable information on their number of second homes. These authorities are indicated in the tables by 'no estimate'.
  387W

  (a) Devon

  Local authority name

  Number of second homes

  East Devon

  2,431

  Exeter

  No estimate

  Mid-Devon

  301

  North Devon

  914

  South Hams

  4,597

  Teignbridge

  1,396

  Torridge

  No estimate

  West Devon

  No estimate

  Plymouth UA

  No estimate

  Torbay U A

  1,576

  (b) Cornwall

  Local authority name

  Number of second homes

  Caradon

  1,461

  Carrick

  No estimate

  Kerrier

  1,530

  North Cornwall

  4,095

  Penwith

  No estimate

  Restormel

  1,741

  Isles of Scilly UA

  248

  (c) Somerset

  Local authority name

  Number of second homes

  Mendip

  365

  Sedgemoor

  404

  South Somerset

  608

  Taunton Deane

  362

  West Somerset

  1,058

  Bath and North-east Somerset UA

  79

  Bristol UA

  201

  North Somerset UA

  No estimate

  (d) Dorset

  Local authority name

  Number of second homes

  Christchurch

  No estimate

  East Dorset

  280

  North Dorset

  No estimate

  Purbeck

  887

  West Dorset

  1,597

  Weymouth and Portland

  618

  Bournemouth UA

  1,583

  Poole UA

  No estimate

  Source:

  CTBl(S) form.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households are in the registered social housing landlord sector. [83408]

  Mr. McNulty
  Housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation house 3,037 million tenants in 1.6 million dwellings.

  South West of England Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many offices the South West Regional Development Agency has outside the UK; how many people are employed in these offices; and what the annual budget is for the overseas offices operated by the agency. [82603]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.
  388W
  The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has one physical office outside the UK in Tokyo, where there are three staff and the budget for which is £325,000 in the current year. SWRDA also has five people in the USA in three locations (three people in Chicago; and one in each of Boston and San Francisco) but these are not physical offices. The budget for the US team is £495,000 for the current year.

  SWRDA is also contributing £160,000 this year to the South West UK Brussels office.

  Swaminarayan Hindu Mission (Brent)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission concerning their dispute with Brent Council; and if he will make a statement. [82359]

  Mr. Leslie
  I am not aware of any representation received by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Swaminarayan Hindu mission.

  Wakefield Metropolitan District
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the retained capital receipts from the sale of council houses by Wakefield metropolitan district council at May 1997; how much has been released since that date and what the value is of unreleased receipts. [83162]

  Mr. McNulty
  The cumulative net selling price of council housing stock reported by Wakefield MDC between April 1980 and March 1997 was some £118 million. Under capital finance regulations, 25 per cent, of capital receipts arising from stock sales (excluding the value of any related local authority mortgages) are classified as a usable, while the balance is required to be 'set aside' as provision for credit liabilities. Between April 1997 and March 2002, Wakefield reported a further £54 million generated by stock sales.

  Allocations to Wakefield under the Capital Receipts Initiative between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 totalled £9.652 million. In addition, Wakefield applied £9.671 million of its usable housing capital receipts (including those arising from the sale of other assets) to fund its housing capital programmes between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education Finance
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the capital requirements of higher education institutions. [81979]

  Margaret Hodge
  There have been three linked studies into the capital requirements of higher education institutions, covering science research infrastructure, teaching and learning, and arts and humanities. These reports concluded that there were shortfalls of £3.2 billion of investment in science research, £5.3 billion in teaching and learning and £0.5 billion in arts and humanities.
  389W

  Primary Schools
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the value of target-setting in primary schools. [81980]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The value of target setting is evident from the part it has played in the unprecedented success of primary schools in raising standards of literacy and numeracy. Since the introduction of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies schools have achieved a 10 per cent, point improvement in the number of 11-year-olds achieving the expected level in English, and 14 per cent, point improvement in mathematics. This year's results taken together were the best ever.

  Top-up Fees
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his policy on the introduction of top-up fees for higher education. [81981]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Mr. Illsley),Official Report, column 448.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his policy on school exclusions. [81982]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's Circular 10/99— Social Inclusion: Pupil Support contains the Secretary of State's guidance on the appropriate use of exclusion— both fixed term and permanent, procedures to be followed on exclusion and provides guidance on the duties and roles of those involved in the process. My right hon. Friend will issue revised guidance when new arrangements for exclusions are put in place under the Education Act 2002.

  Maths Teachers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress towards the Government's targets for recruiting trainee mathematics teachers in 2002. [81983]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), on 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 32W.

  Universities
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to assist United Kingdom universities to become centres of excellence. [81984]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is already excellence within our universities— in research, teaching, linking with business and working in the community. We want to make sure that excellence is recognised, incentivised and rewarded. Our Strategy Document, to be published in January, will set out in detail how we propose to do this.
  390W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received about the special payments to universities in respect of pupils resident in specified postcode areas. [81994]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend receives representations about a range of higher education issues. Universities and colleges incur additional costs in recruiting, teaching and supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds. The funding they receive from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in respect of these costs is the 'postcode premium'. HEFCE is currently reviewing this funding and has consulted on a range of options.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the minimum full time salary level paid to a university lecturer after five years service. [81995]

  Margaret Hodge
  The pay of higher education staff is negotiated between employers, their staff and their representative trade union bodies. This is not an issue for the Government, but in the spending review for the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 we provided £330 million to underpin universities' human resource strategies. This was to help institutions recruit, retain and develop the staff they need to improve further the quality of teaching and learning and to modernise management and reward systems.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he will take to ensure that there is an increase in the number of university students from low income backgrounds. [81997]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are determined to encourage more young people from lower income backgrounds to enter higher education. Our secondary school reforms will help raise participation and attainment levels so that more young people will be eligible to benefit from higher education. We have committed over £190 million over three years to the Excellence Challenge to raise aspirations and attainment of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. This includes making available 25,000 Opportunity Bursaries to encourage young students from low-income families into higher education. Young people in schools and further education colleges in Excellence Challenge areas continue to benefit from the AimHigher road show, which was launched earlier this year to promote higher education.

  Our review of higher education which will be published in January will reflect our continued commitment to widening participation in higher education.

  Schools (Regulation)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he next expects to meet representatives of teacher unions to discuss the burden of regulation in schools. [81985]
  391W
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions he has had with teachers' representatives on the number of directives issued to schools since 1997. [81992]

  Mr. Miliband
  I will be meeting representatives of teacher unions shortly to discuss our work force proposals. These include the establishment of an Implementation Review Unit, featuring a panel of experienced serving practitioners, to improve policy implementation and reduce bureaucratic burdens.

  Young Carers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he has given schools in order to accommodate the particular needs of young carers, while at the same time, pursuing their careers at schools. [81986]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Advice on how to support young carers at school has been provided to schools in DfES circular 10/99.

  It recommends that schools:
  adopt flexible strategies to address the young carers' needs e.g. approve absence when needed and set work to avoid gaps in education;
  work with statutory and voluntary agencies to identify specific problems and offer solutions; and
  designate a member of staff to take responsibility for young carers.

  Higher Education Funding
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for the funding of higher education. [81987]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for funding of universities. [81989]

  Margaret Hodge
  We will publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education in January. It would not be right for me to say now exactly what is or is not planned.

  School Funding
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) average amounts paid to English local authorities and (b) amount paid to Leeds education authority per pupil were in respect of (i) educational standard spending, (ii) standards fund and (iii) other special and specific grants in each of the last three years. [83472]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Education Act
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools he expects to apply for new freedoms under the Education Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [81988]
  392W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has no preconceived idea of the number of applications for new freedoms that will be received. It is intended that schools should be in the lead in making proposals.

  We have always made clear that we intend to consult widely on the criteria for exemptions related to school performance before regulations are laid. Subject to consultation, we envisage linking the criteria to those that Ofsted propose to use for standard inspections.

  School Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the levels of staff turnover in schools in the South East in the last 12 months. [81990]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the latest available turnover and wastage data for the South East Government Office Region.

  Turnover and wastage rates of qualified teachers, 1999–2000 (provisional)

  Percentage

  Full-Time

  Part-Time1

  Turnover rate2

  Wastage rate3

  Turnover rate4

  Wastage rate5

  South East

  Government

  Office

  Region

  17.2

  10.4

  32.1

  27.8

  10–20 per cent, of part-time teachers may not be included in the data.

  2Full-time turnover is defined as all teachers in full-time service in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 1999 who were not in full-time service in the same establishment on 31 March 2000. Turnover therefore includes wastage, transfers to other establishments within the maintained schools sector and teachers leaving to part-time service. Not all employers record all movements between their schools so turnover rates may be underestimated.

  3Full-time wastage is defined as all teachers in full-time service in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 1999 who were not in full-time service anywhere in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 2000. This includes teachers leaving to part-time service.

  4Part-time turnover is defined as all teachers in part-time service in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 1999 who were not in part-time service in the same establishment on 31 March 2000. Turnover therefore includes wastage, transfers to other establishments within the maintained schools sector and teachers leaving to full-time service.

  5Part-time wastage is defined as all teachers in part-time service in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 1999 who were not in part-time service anywhere in the maintained schools sector on 31 March 2000. This includes teachers leaving to full-time service.

  Note:

  More recent data, for wastage/turnover up to March 2001, are available at national level but the data are not yet sufficiently complete for regional analysis.

  Source:

  Database of Teacher Records.

  There has been a net increase in the number of teachers in the South East region. The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector rose from 61,800 in January 2001 to 63,500 in January 2002.

  The South East region includes: Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead, West Berkshire, Reading, Slough, Wokingham, Buckinghamshire,

  393W
  Milton Keynes, East Sussex, Brighton and Hove, Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, Isle of Wight, Kent, Medway, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex.

  Food Technology
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce Food Technology into the National Curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [81991]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Food technology is part of the design and technology curriculum and is therefore already a statutory entitlement for all primary pupils within the National Curriculum. They learn practical food handling skills, including food hygiene, and are encouraged to develop positive attitudes to food. At Key Stage 3, the Government strongly encourages secondary schools to offer pupils the opportunity to study food technology, and nearly 90 per cent, do so. Food, nutrition and healthy eating are also taught within science and personal, social and health education.

  School Transport
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the variation in school transport costs between different local education authority areas in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [81993]

  Mr. Miliband
  The variation in spend on home to school transport between local education authorities was considered in papers to the Education Funding Strategy Group at its meetings on 31 January 2002, and 13 March 2002. In both instances data from 2001–02 were used to develop a formula for the distribution of funding for home to school transport in the new LEA funding system, to be introduced for 2003–04.

  Schools (Coalfield Communities)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new schools have been built in coalfield communities since 1997; and how many are planned. [81996]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not have this information. Local education authorities determine the need for additional places in the maintained sector and, where necessary, build or support the provision of new schools. The Department makes available capital funding for new school places; many of these are provided in existing schools.

  Sure Start (Gloucester)
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on Sure Start in Gloucester. [81998]

  Maria Eagle
  There is one Sure Start programme operating in Gloucester, a Round Two programme in Barton, Tredworth and White City that was approved in October 2000, with a catchment area covering 934 children under four.
  394W
  It has revenue funding of £2.2 million until March 2004 and capital funding approval, in principle, of £852,000. It operates over six separate sites within the area, linked to local schools, in educational centres.

  The catchment area is situated outside the city centre, bounded by main roads and partially disused railway lines. It serves a diverse community including Afro-Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Ukrainian and Irish groups. There are also a number of asylum seekers settling in the area.

  Home visiting is a key service for the programme, as it is enabling 'hard to reach' people who might not otherwise be supported, to be picked up. It has funded 10 people to complete accredited courses for learning support workers in primary schools and a further two people to take the Further Adult Education Teacher certificate. It has increased the overall number of children using library services. Its parents' forum awards small grants to community organisations (e.g. for new equipment for a parent toddler group or adventure playground) and inputs into the local evaluation of Sure Start.

  Graduate Earnings
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent estimate he has made of the average lifetime earnings of(a) graduates and (b) non-graduates. [81999]

  Margaret Hodge
  We estimate that the average lifetime earnings of a graduate with a first degree are just over £1 million.

  This is based on current labour market conditions, using data from the Labour Force Survey.

  The estimated average for the working population as a whole is around £675,000, and it would be significantly lower than this for non-graduates.

  School Buildings (Private Finance Initiative)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on private finance initiatives in school buildings in Cheshire. [82000]

  Mr. Miliband
  Cheshire County Council signed a schools PFI contract with the Eric Wright Group on 22 October, covering a number of schools in Ellesmere Port. The project will rebuild or modernise five primary schools, provide sports and drama facilities at one secondary school and provide additional community facilities. The project is supported by £16.1 million in PFI credits from the Department for Education and Skills for the educational facilities, and by £1 million in PFI credits from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the community facilities.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of English students completed upper secondary education in the last year for which figures are available. [83202]
  395W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The information available is not held centrally.

  EU Education Benchmarks
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many extra sixth form higher education and further education places will be required in England by 2010 to meet the EU education benchmarks. [83203]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The structure and organisation of education systems is the responsibility of individual EU member states. There are no education benchmarks at EU level that we are required to meet. Education Ministers will consider next year whether or not to use some existing international indicators and/or benchmarks to help share and spread best practice in education.

  Number of pupils not in school and being otherwise educated 1998–2002

  Somerset Local Education Authority

  England

  Pupils aged 5–10

  Pupils aged 11–15

  Pupils aged 16+

  Total

  Pupils aged 5–10

  Pupils aged 11–15

  Pupils aged 16+

  Total

  1998

  71

  234

  9

  314

  2,462

  10,587

  545

  13,594

  1999

  83

  308

  5

  396

  2,232

  11,351

  422

  14,005

  2000

  93

  344

  3

  440

  2,825

  12,264

  585

  15,670

  2001

  24

  337

  1

  362

  3,037

  12,843

  427

  16,307

  2002

  64

  119

  19

  202

  3,361

  15,187

  386

  18,934

  The available figures record for each local education authority the number of pupils not in school and being otherwise educated under arrangements made by the authority. As well as covering pupils taught at home, this includes but does not separately identify, traveller children and asylum seekers at further education colleges or with voluntary providers. It does not however include pupils who are being educated at home through parental choice and independent of local education authority arrangements.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his officials have made of the(a) number and (b) cost of children in this country receiving state education (i) who do not have the legal rights to settle in the UK and (ii) whose parents are illegal immigrants. [80957]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  All children are entitled to education regardless of their immigration status.

  Local education authorities receive funding for these children in the same way that they do for other children on school rolls. Other financial support is available through the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant for help with the provision of English as an additional
  396W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the additional spending required in England to meet EU educational benchmarks. [83204]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The structure and organisation of education systems is the responsibility of individual EU member states. There are no education benchmarks at EU level that we are required to meet. Education Ministers will consider next year whether or not to use some existing international indicators and/or benchmarks to help share and spread best practice in education.

  Home Education (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils of school age were educated at home in each age group in(a) Somerset and (b) Taunton in each of the last five years. [82612]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table:

  language and through a one-off grant for children of asylum seekers supported by schools in the dispersal areas.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many and what percentage of members of(a) each local learning and skills council and (b) the National Learning and Skills Council declare a record of political activity, broken down by party. [80990]

  Margaret Hodge
  Appointments to the LSC have been made through fair and open competition, in complete accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). Working with the LSC we have sought to attract applications from individuals with a wide range of appropriate experience, regardless of any political affiliation they may have. Information is provided in the table below and shows those Council members who have declared a political interest. This does not necessarily mean that individuals are or have been politically active; they have simply declared an affiliation to a political party. These figures exclude the
  397W
  Executive Directors of LLSCs since they were not required to declare political activity when applying for these posts.

  Local LSC

  Labour

  Conservative

  Liberal democrat

  Others

  North East

  County Durham

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tees Valley

  4(1)

  1

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  3(1)

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  6(2)

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  1

  —

  1(1)

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1(1)

  1(1)

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  3(2)

  1

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  South Yorkshire

  4(2)

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  2(2)

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1(1)

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  3(1)

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  5(1)

  —

  —

  —

  The Black Country

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2(1)

  —

  1

  —

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  2

  —

  1(1)

  1

  Staffordshire

  4(1)

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  4(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  4(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Merseyside

  4

  —

  1(1)

  —

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  1(1)

  —

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  —

  —

  2(1)

  —

  Gloucestershire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1

  1

  1(1)

  —

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  1(1)

  2(2)

  1

  —

  The West of England

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  4(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  1(1)

  1

  Essex

  3(1)

  2(1)

  1

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1(1)

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2(1)

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  3(2)

  1(1)

  —

  —

  South East

  Berkshire

  None Declared

  Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and IOW

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kent and Medway

  2(1)

  3(1)

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Bucks

  3(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  1(1)

  —

  —

  Sussex

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  London

  London Central

  3(1)

  3

  —

  —

  London East

  4(2)

  —

  —

  —

  London North

  3(1)

  —

  —

  —

  London South

  2

  1(1)

  —

  —

  London West

  3

  —

  —

  —

  398W
  Figures in brackets show the number of local authority councillors.
  399W
  Of the 15 members appointed to the National Council, 6 declared political activity with the Labour Party, 1 of whom is a local councillor. There were no declarations with respect to other parties.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern apprenticeship places were taken up in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and how many were left vacant. [83725]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of starts on modern apprenticeships (Foundation and Advanced) in 2000 and 2001 are shown in the table:

  AMA

  FMA

  26 December 1999 to 24 December 2000

  76,900

  94,200

  25 December 2000 to 23 December 2001

  64,400

  110,500

  Numbers of Modern Apprenticeships left vacant are not available.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase the take-up of modern apprenticeships. [83726]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are wholly committed to modern apprenticeships (MA) as a quality work-based learning route for young people. We have adopted a challenging Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for MA entrants by 2004—28 per cent, of young people to begin an MA by the age of 22.

  The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Chairman of the Learning and Skills Council have announced a new modern apprenticeship task force which will take a key role in promoting MA to employers and thereby contributing to increased take-up.

  All parties involved in the initiative are working together to increase the take-up of MAs. The LSC is running a marketing and promotion campaign with a range of measures to reach employers and key influencers, following its successful campaign targeting young people. Connexions Partnerships are delivering improved advice and guidance to young people on the opportunities available in their communities. New and developing sector skills councils also play a key role by supporting promotion to employers in their sectors.

  Pilot and Pathfinder Schemes (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for which pilot and pathfinder schemes the Isle of Wight council was eligible to apply. [81267]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No LEAs were invited to participate in the schools Peer Mentoring Pack pilot, as it is school based. However, Medina High School (Isle of Wight) is involved in piloting the schools peer mentoring pack during the school year 2002–03. Also, Carisbrooke High School (Isle of Wight) will be invited 400W
  to take part in the second round of the peer mentoring pilot. The second phase of the roll-out will take place in the new year.

  No schools in the Isle of Wight fell within the definition for Schools Facing Extremely Challenging Circumstances, therefore, none have been invited to participate in the project, nor have any been invited to participate in the Zoneparcs project, as none met the deprivation criteria for this project.

  Isle of Wight LEA was not invited to participate in the Excellence in Cities programme, which covers Learning Mentors, enhanced opportunities for the Gifted and Talented and the Excellence in Cities Primary Pilot. Appropriate LEAs were identified by the Department, there was no application process.

  As the Isle of Wight did not meet the defined criteria it is not participating in the Pupil Learning Credits pilot, nor was the Isle of Wight council invited to participate in the School Partnerships for Improvement pilot, or the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilot scheme, as no schools met the defining criteria.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what activities are being undertaken by his Department to promote the take-up of education in prisons; what incentives exist within the penal system to encourage the take-up of education by prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [82457]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]We are improving both the quality and quantity of prison education to bring more prisoners into learning and to ensure they benefit from it. The prison education budget will rise to £87 million next year— an increase of almost 50 per cent, in real terms over last year. This includes investment of £20 million capital over the next two years to support the modernisation of education and training provision including transforming prison libraries so that they become learning resource centres. And it includes a further £2 million in computer training opportunities to help prepare prisoners for the demands of the modern labour market. We are also helping prison establishments to expand the range of environments in which they can offer learning.

  Governors have to ensure that the rates of pay they set do not discourage prisons from participating in activities, which are part of their sentence or learning plan. Through the "Incentives and Earned Privileges" scheme, some Governors have developed ways of incentivising and rewarding educational progress and achievement. At the same time, the Prison Service order on "Education in Prisons" sets out the statutory requirement on how education must be provided. It states that all prisons must provide activities in a range of ways, which respond to the individual needs of the learners.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will rank education authorities in England the most recent pupil/teacher ratios for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [80597]
  401W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Revenue Grants (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the likely impact on education in Warrington of each of the five options in the consultation on the review of revenue grant distribution. [83893]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government has been carefully considering all the suggestions put to us in response to the consultation, including the F40 Group's suggestion of an Option 5. We will announce decisions on the new funding system early next month.

  School Exclusions (Essex)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded from schools in Essex in each year since 1997. [80892]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available information on permanent exclusions is shown in the table. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.

  Number of permanent exclusions in primary1, secondary1 and special schools in the academic years 1996–97 to 2000–01— Essex Local Education Authority

  Essex2

  Essex3

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  276

  4—

  Percentage of the school population

  0.12

  4—

  1997—98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4—

  207

  Percentage of the school population

  4—

  0.11

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4—

  191

  Percentage of the school population

  4—

  0.10

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4—

  182

  Percentage of the school population

  4—

  0.09

  2000–01

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4—

  198

  Percentage of the school population

  4—

  0.10

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  2 Before Local Government Reorganisation

  3 After Local Government Reorganisation

  4 Not applicable

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  School Leavers (Coalfields)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children left school with no academic qualifications in coalfield areas in each year since 1997; and how this compares with the national average. [82247]
  402W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils attaining no passes at GCSE/GNVQ

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Coalfields—maintained Schools

  5.9

  6.1

  6.2

  7.2

  8.7

  England—maintained schools

  5.1

  5.0

  5.5

  6.1

  7.3

  England—all schools

  5.5

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  7.7

  Note:

  The definition of a coalfield area taken from the coalfields task force report, June 1998, is: a ward where 10 per cent, of resident males in employment at the time of the 1981 census of population were engaged in the energy and water sector. In these areas, this sector overwhelmingly comprises coalmining.

  School Standards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when(a) heads were able to cease following orders, (b) school performance failure was most recently unchallenged, (c) the school curriculum was most recently not publicly scrutinised and (d) school accountability was weak as stated in Education and Skills: Investment for Reform. [81763]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government document Investment for Reform sets out clearly the changes under way in the education system.

  Post-16 Students
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on shared delivery of education between schools and sixth form colleges and further education colleges for post-16 students. [81966]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government expects schools, colleges and all providers in the learning and skills sector to work together to raise standards, improve choice and ensure success for all post-16 learners. Improving this collaborative working is a key theme in the Government's ambitious plan for reform of further education and training— Success for All— which was launched on 19 November. We are supporting this reform package with the largest ever investment in the learning and skills sector, which will enable the Learning and Skills Council to reduce substantially the current gap in the core funding rates per qualification it pays to school sixth forms and FE colleges.

  A key part of these reforms is the programme of Strategic Area Reviews led by local Learning and Skills Councils, which will commence in April 2003. This process will help build in each part of the country a network of providers working in collaboration to achieve educational and economic success.

  We have also begun our pilot of the first sixteen 14 to 19 pathfinder areas. This programme will explore how a coherent 14 to 19 phase can be delivered nationally in a variety of locations with different social circumstances and different mixes of schools and colleges.
  403W

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of how many vacancies there are in the construction industry in Leeds. [83488]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Battle, dated 28 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for information on the latest estimate of the number of vacancies in the construction industry in Leeds.
  The only comprehensive information about current job vacancies analysed by industry is the new monthly enterprise— based ONS Vacancy Survey, which at this stage is being published on an experimental basis. According to this survey there were 20,400 job vacancies in the construction industry on average for the period August to October 2002 for the United Kingdom as a whole. The survey is designed to met users' needs for high quality information about vacancies at national level and, in its present state of development, cannot provide analyses by region or local area.
  The most recently available data from the Jobcentre plus administrative system shows 648 unfilled job vacancies in the construction industry of the Leeds travel-to-work area in April 2001. This figure is not comprehensive as only a proportion of vacancies are notified to Jobcentres. There are no more recent data because publication was deferred in May 2001 due to substantial disortions in the data caused by the introduction of Employer Direct by Jobcentre Plus. This was a major change which involved transferring the vacancy taking process from local Jobcentres to regional customer service centres over the period from April 2001 to January 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Hunting
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the evidence submitted during the consultation process relating to hunting. [83383]

  Alun Michael
  The proceedings referred to have been exemplary in terms of being available to everyone who has an interest in the issue. The three full days of hearings held in Portcullis House in September were(a) open to the public (b) available via live webcast and (c) Published in full transcript within days of the event. In addition video recordings of the three days on 9, 10 and 11 September have been placed in the Library of the House. Transcripts of the public hearings and the presentations made by the expert witnesses are available electronically at www.defra.gov.uk. Copies of these documents together with the evidence submitted to me by organisations, including individual hunts, during the consultation process will be available in the Library of the House.
  404W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the development of a European common foreign and security policy. [83880]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom is committed to a strong EU Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, that is to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union, to strengthen the security of the Union, to preserve peace and strengthen international security, to promote international cooperation and to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much EU structural funding was returned to the Commission, by(a) region and (b) organisational sector, between 1994 and 2001. [82667]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information requested cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Repayments of EU Structural Funds in the period concerned are largely in respect of pre-1994 programmes rather than the 1994–99 programmes which do not have to be closed until mid-2003.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the European Arrest Warrant. [81495]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received various pieces of correspondence on the European Arrest Warrant, which have been passed to the Home Office for reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. Bob Ainsworth) on 26 November 2022,Official Report, column 246W.

  European Union
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Dutch Government proposals to reduce the influence of large member states in the European Union. [83665]

  Mr. MacShane
  We strongly believe that all member states should have an equal say in shaping the future of Europe. All are equally represented in the convention, as are the accession countries. The ideas produced by the convention will be submitted to an intergovernmental conference for agreement by unanimity.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Greg Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a)

  405W
  Ministers and (b) officials last met their Spanish counterparts to discuss Gibraltar; and when they plan to meet next to discuss Gibraltar. [84006]

  Mr. MacShane
  The last meeting with Spain under the Brussels Process took place on 4 February 2002. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed Gibraltar with his Spanish opposite number when they met on 27 September. I discussed Gibraltar in the margins of the EU GAERC with the Spanish Minister for Europe. No date has been set for a further meeting.

  EU Migrant Workers
  Mr. James Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on protection by member states of migrant workers in Europe. [83240]

  Mr. MacShane
  Various European Union regulations, principally Regulations 1612/68 and Regulation 1408/71, set out the fundamental rules for migrant workers with EU citizenship exercising their rights of free movement within the European Union. My Ministerial colleagues are engaged in continuing dialogue with other Member States and the European Commission in improving the effectiveness of these measures, while ensuring these are consistent with the aims of improving mobility and simplification for the citizen and Member States' administrations.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards Turkey's accession to the EU. [83420]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission's 2002 Regular Report on Turkey described the progress that Turkey has made towards complying with the Copenhagen political criteria, which are a precondition for opening accession negotiations. The Brussels European Council welcomed the important reforms undertaken by the Turkish Government, and said that Turkey's progress had brought forward the prospect of opening accession negotiations. HMG is a strong supporter of Turkey's EU candidature and we look forward to the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey as soon as possible and in accordance with the conditions which all candidates must meet.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Erdogan of Turkey since his election to the presidency of Turkey. [83884]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), on 20 November. They discussed the AKP's plans for government and their commitment to reform, particularly in the area of human rights. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the new Turkish Government's ambitious programme and underlined the UK's strong support for Turkey's EU candidature and for the role Turkey played in the wider world. The Foreign Secretary also stressed that there was now a unique opportunity ahead of the Copenhagen Summit in 406W
  December to make progress over European Defence issues, and to resolve the problem of Cyprus on the basis of the UN Secretary-General's recent comprehensive proposals.

  The Foreign Secretary will be travelling to Turkey on 3–4 December to continue these discussions with the new Turkish Government.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey regarding the number of Turkish Kurd asylum seekers illegally entering the United Kingdom. [83886]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not raised immigration with the new Turkish Government. However, discussions between UK and Turkish officials have been taking place for some time on asylum and immigration matters.

HEALTH

  Adoption
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Government plan for voluntary adoption agencies following the Adoption and Children Act 2002. [84025]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government is aware that voluntary adoption agencies (VAAs) make a very significant contribution to the adoption service and play an important supporting role alongside their local authority partners in assessing prospective adopters for both domestic and inter-country adoption. Indeed, statistics prepared by the consortium of voluntary adoption agencies show that in 2001–02, 604 children were placed for adoption with adopters approved by 26 of their member agencies. This accounts for around 20 per cent of the looked after children likely to have been placed for adoption during that year.

  Many VAAs specialise in finding adoptive placements for the more difficult to place children, including older children, children from ethnic minority groups and those with special needs. Almost a quarter of the 604 children placed for adoption with adopters assessed by VAAs were disabled, developmentally delayed or had special health care needs.

  VAAs also provide choice for adopters, for example some cater for prospective adopters of a particular religious faith, and local authorities and vulnerable children benefit from this choice.

  VAAs also play an important part in the provision of adoption support services. Nearly all VAAs offer support networks and provide a wide variety of support including workshops, therapeutic and social groups and counselling of individuals.

  The Government expects the valuable role played by VAAs to continue and grow under the new Act.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in increasing the number of children who leave care to be adopted. [83165]
  407W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's social services performance assessment framework indicators 2001–02, which were published last week, show that the number of adoptions of looked after children increased from 3,100 in 2000–01 to 3,400 in 2001–02— a rise of 11 per cent.

  Since the Quality Protects initiative began in 1998–99, there has been an increase of 1,200 in the annual number of looked after children adopted— a rise of almost 55 per cent.

  The Government believe that more can and should be done to promote the wider use of adoption to provide permanent, secure homes for vulnerable children, and have set a public service agreement target to increase by

  Region

  Establishment WTE

  Actual headcount

  Actual WTE

  Variance Total Staff v. Establishment WTE

  Offers made

  Vacancies

  Percentage vacancies against establishment

  North East

  79.49

  80.00

  76.96

  2.53

  0.00

  2.53

  3.18

  East Midlands

  115.79

  113.00

  106.36

  9.43

  0.00

  9.43

  8.14

  South West

  201.21

  197.00

  184.42

  16.79

  0.00

  16.79

  8.34

  West Midlands

  148.27

  149.00

  137.46

  10.81

  0.00

  10.81

  7.29

  North West

  212.03

  193.00

  185.03

  27.00

  0.00

  27.00

  12.73

  London

  137.01

  125.00

  116.08

  20.93

  0.00

  20.93

  15.28

  South East

  268.62

  220.00

  207.31

  61.31

  35.00

  26.31

  9.79

  Eastern

  128.66

  122.00

  115.78

  12.88

  0.50

  12.38

  9.62

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  137.84

  128.00

  123.86

  13.98

  0.00

  13.98

  10.15

  Inspector total

  1,428.92

  1,327.00

  1,253.26

  175.66

  35.50

  140.16

  9.81

  Notes:

  1. Offers made are those that are currently awaiting start dates following the recruitment campaign of July/August.

  2. Regions are currently in the process of interviewing for the current round of inspectors where we expect to fill 75–100 posts.

  3. Advert will be going to press on 4 December for any remaining vacancies.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken since 1997 to develop preventive services to identify children at risk of abuse. [81064]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the publication of the Cross Cutting Review of Children at Risk for the 2002 Spending Review, the Government recently announced the next steps in developing preventive approaches in services for children and families. Local authorities, the health service, the police and key criminal justice agencies will, for next year, agree local preventive strategies which will build on existing initiatives such as Sure Start, the Children's Fund, Connexions and youth offending teams. The development of local strategies will be supported by Government offices and the inspectorates who, where necessary, will work with the local partners on ensuring that an effective strategy is in place.

  The Government have also announced in the Treasury White Paper on the Spending Review published in July 2002, their intention to pilot new organisational models for managing children's services known as children's trusts. This work will be complemented by the Green Paper on Children at Risk announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in July 2002.
  408W
  40 per cent., and if possible, by 50 per cent, of the number of looked after children adopted by 2004–05 from a baseline of 2,700 in 1999–2000.

  Care Home Inspectors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) care home inspectors are employed and (b) vacancies there are in each region for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [82022]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of inspectors in post by region and the numbers of current vacancies are shown in the table.

  Regions are currently in the process of interviewing for inspectors where it is expected an extra 75–100 posts will be filled, further boosting capacity.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for local authorities in the UK to put in place area child protection committees to look at safeguarding children. [81065]

  Jacqui Smith
  "Working Together to Safeguard Children", the Government's guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, published in 1999, states that local authorities, in exercising their social services functions, should ensure that there is an area child protection committee covering their area, which brings together representatives of each of the main agencies and professionals responsible for helping to protect children from abuse and neglect. Area review committees were first established in 1974 and became area child protection committees in 1991. This guidance applies only to England.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of young children were classified as failing to thrive in each year since 1997. [82746]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The category, 'failure to thrive', has not been used in the Government's child protection guidance since 1991. "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989", which was first published in 1991, and later replaced in 1999 by "Working Together to Safeguard Children—a

  409W
  Guide to Inter-agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children", narrowed the categories used when placing a child's name on the child protection register. The category of 'failure to thrive' is now, therefore, no longer recommended for use as a child protection register category.

  Children in Care (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in care in Leeds in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2000; and what percentage these represented of Leeds children. [83477]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  The number of children in the care of (or being looked after by) Leeds metropolitan council at 31 March, and the rate per 10,000 children aged under 18 years

  Year

  Number at 31 March

  Rate per 10,000 children

  1970

  1,015

  73

  1980

  2,000

  104

  1990

  1,365

  85

  2000

  1,275

  79

  Notes:

  1. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Figures for 1970 to 1990 relate to children in care of local authorities under the Children Act 1948, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and associated legislation.

  3. Figures for 2000 relate to children being looked after by local councils under the Children Act 1989.

  Children's Trusts
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for the role of the children's trusts. [83348]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 29 October 2002,Official Report, volume 391, column 679–80.

  We are currently seeking views of stakeholders to inform our thinking about models that would support the vision of children's trusts we have set out. Pilots will start from April 2003, and we will be issuing a prospectus inviting expressions of interest in December.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts and health authorities are making available digital hearing aids for(a) children and (b) adults. [82485]

  Jacqui Smith
  In order to access the national health service contract for digital hearing aids, trusts must first have in place the appropriate infrastructure, equipment and training. All 20 sites from the first wave of the modernising hearing aid services project regularly supply digital aids.

  The number of second wave sites prescribing digital aids will increase each month so that all 30 will be prescribing by the end of March 2003. In addition, the
  410W
  17 sites announced on 22 November as receiving the necessary information technology equipment will be in a position to prescribe digital aids from April 2003.

  A list of first wave sites, second wave sites and sites to receive equipment will be placed in the Library.

  Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions were made concerning doctors' work rotas in the work force modelling undertaken as part of the Wanless Review of the long-term trends affecting the national health service. [83453]

  Mr. Hutton
  The modelling for the Wanless Report was carried out by Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT), using a model that they had developed for forecasting the long-term growth in demand for health care services. The output from this model was converted into work force demand using a model developed within the Department and adapted for the HMT requirements. This model took account of the reduction in average hours worked as a result of the European Working Time Directive and assumed that all medical staff would be working less than 48 hours per week for the national health service by 2009.

  European Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from Europe the contracts signed by NHS trusts brought to the UK for each trust involved. [83284]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]Forty overseas doctors have signed contracts with National Health Service trusts as part of the overseas clinical teams initiative, of whom 24 were from Europe. Central Middlesex is working with one doctor from Italy, one from Ireland and one from Germany. Seven German doctors are working at South Tyneside NHS Trust. Ten French doctors are working at East Somerset NHS Trust. Three French doctors are working at Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust. One German doctor worked at mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Sixteen South African doctors have been involved in the scheme; four doctors are currently working at Hillingdon Hospital and 12 worked at Morecambe Bay Hospital NHS Trust.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 31 acute NHS trusts which indicated in 2001 that they were interested in becoming foundation trusts. [82843]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]In June 2002, we asked for expressions of interest in National Health Service foundation trust status from chief executives of NHS trusts awarded three stars in the previous NHS performance ratings announced in September 2001. We received 31 expressions of interest.

  These organisations have not been listed since applications to become NHS foundation trusts will be invited only from acute and specialist NHS trusts that

  411W
  were awarded three stars in the performance ratings announced in July 2002. Of the 31 original expressions of interest, however, more than half retained their three star status in July 2002.

  We will shortly issue a publication that will set out our detailed proposals on establishing NHS foundation trusts. Alongside this, or shortly after publication, we will invite preliminary applications to become NHS foundation trusts.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the General Practitioner Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy Survey for 2002 will be published. [82737]

  Mr. Hutton
  The results of the General Practitioner Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy Survey 2002 were published on 19 November 2002.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the age distribution of general practitioners at retirement was in each of the past five years. [82738]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The number of medical general practitioners, in England and Wales who have received a retirement pension before or after age 60 for each of the financial years 1998 to 2002 is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Before age 60

  After age 60

  Total

  1998

  246

  406

  652

  1999

  226

  381

  607

  2000

  191

  279

  470

  2001

  298

  473

  771

  2002

  313

  439

  752

  Hospital Admissions (Homeless People)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to NHS hospitals whose address was listed as no fixed abode between(a) December 1999 and January 2000, (b) December 2000 and January 2001 and (c) December 2001 and January 2002. [81678]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of admissions to national health service hospitals where place of residence is not known. Admissions involving patients of no fixed abode are not separately identifiable.

  Admissions to NHS hospitals w known here place of residence is not no (including fixed abode)

  December 1999 to January 2000

  3,804

  December 2000 to January 2001

  4,466

  Notes:

  1. Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/ invalid clinical data.

  2. Data exclude all healthy newborn babies, as their address is recorded as not known.

  3. Data not yet available for 2001–02.

  Source:
  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.
  412W

  Mass Casualties (CBRN Attack)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to treat mass casualties arising from a CBRN attack. [82582]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 145W.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing Standard 1 of the National Service Framework for mental health. [81045]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health and social services were set a target to develop and agree local mental health promotion strategies by March 2002. To help support the delivery of this target the Department published "Making It Happen: A guide to delivering mental health promotion" in August 2001. Local services have undertaken a themed review to ascertain progress in developing their strategies. This will, when completed, give a national picture of progress made.

  NHS Choice
  Mr Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend NHS choice throughout the country in specialisms only available in London; and if he will make a statement. [82108]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London patient choice pilot has since the beginning of October 2002 offered choice for two ophthalmology procedures where a patient has been on a waiting list for an operation for more than six months. We will be extending that choice in London to include ear, nose and throat, orthopaedics and general surgery from April 2003.

  We are planning to operate equivalent pilots to other parts of the country, and as these pilots are still in the planning stage and funding has not yet been announced, are not able yet to give more details.

  The longer term objective is that by 2006, choice will be routinely offered to all patients nationwide at the stage when the general practitioner decides that a referral to a specialist is needed, for example, the point of booking for the outpatient or equivalent appointment.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether those who have attained and passed Government accredited training as an osteopath may call themselves an osteopath. [82472]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]Under the Osteopaths Act 1993, only those with a qualification recognised by the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) and approved by the Privy Council may register with the GOsC and therefore, legally call themselves osteopaths. Details of all the qualifications it currently recognises may be obtained from the GOsC.
  413W

  Delayed Discharges
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) representations he has received on and (b) assessment he has made of the likely change in host social services facilitating the discharge of patients outside their catchment area, following the introduction of fines for delayed hospital discharge; [83491]

  (2) what impact he expects the introduction of fines for delayed hospital discharge to have on those hospitals with (a) regional specialties and (b) large concentrations of patients from outside their area; [83493]

  (3) what measures he will take to encourage host social services to continue work currently undertaken to facilitate the discharge of patients not in their catchment area; [83492]

  (4) what measures he will take to facilitate the discharge of patients who do not live in the area served by the social services department in the hospital under his proposals to fine local authorities for delayed hospital discharge. [83490]

  Jacqui Smith
  Two councils have raised concerns on this. Under the provisions of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc.) Bill, responsibility for arranging the social care of someone ready for discharge from hospital would rest with the council where the patient lives, rather than the council where the acute hospital trust is based. However, we would expect the relevant social services departments to continue to work together over discharge, as they do now.

  The Bill will ensure that there are financial incentives in place for both local councils and the national health service to ensure that they tackle delayed transfers of care. It will also encourage quicker and better identification of the appropriate council responsible for providing social care services to patients. In particular, this will be of great benefit to specialist hospitals and those that attract patients from some distance away.

  Social workers will, as now, need to be involved in the assessments of patients in acute hospital trusts. This will be re-emphasised in the forthcoming revision of the Hospital Discharge Workbook.

  Pulmonary Embolism
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients died from a pulmonary embolism in each of the last five years. [83495]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Smith dated 28 November 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many NHS patients died from a pulmonary embolism in each of the last five years (93495)
  The available data relate to all deaths occurring in England and Wales. It is not possible to state which of these were to NHS patients, as information on whether or not the deceased was a registered NHS patient is not recorded at death registration. Figures on the total number of deaths certified as due to
  414W
  pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis in England and Wales for each year from 1997 to 2001 are therefore given in the table below.
  Most pulmonary embolisms arise from deep vein thrombosis in the leg, and virtually all deaths from deep vein thrombosis occur as a result of a pulmonary embolism. However, the precise description of this sequence of events leading to death (as provided on the death certificate) effects whether the death is coded as pulmonary embolism or thrombosis. Therefore, a figure combining the two causes is presented in the table to give a complete and consistent picture over time.

  Number of deaths from pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis1, persons, England and Wales, 1997 to 2012

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1997

  6,996

  1998

  6,992

  1999

  6,877

  2000

  7,233

  2001

  7,207

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 415.1, 451,.1,451.2, 451.9 and 453.9 for the years 1997 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes 126, 180.1 180.2 180.3, 180.9 and 182.9. Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1997 to 2001.

  Residential Home Fees
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning his proposed amendment to Regulation 5 of the Care Home Regulations 2001, making it clear to residents what part of their fees relate to nursing, where the funding is coming from, and what part relates to other aspects of care; and if he will make a statement. [83535]

  Jacqui Smith
  A total of 47 responses were received by the end of the consultation period. 26 of these were in favour of amending the regulations and 21, mainly from providers and provider organisations, opposed the introduction of the amending regulations.

  Severe Mental Illness
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give legal status to advance statements for people with severe mental illness. [83804]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 25 November 2002,Official Report, volume 395, column 143W.

  Specialised Healthcare Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what function and powers the strategic health authorities have in(a) monitoring the provision and commissioning of specialised healthcare services and (b) managing the performance of individual primary care trusts. [82779]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 225 November 2002]The functions of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts in relation to specialised services are set out in the National Health Service (Functions of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts and Administration Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002 (Statutory Instrument 2002/2375).
  415W
  Regulation 2(1) of these Regulations defines "specialised services". Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations sets out the functions exercisable by primary care trusts, which are to be performance managed by strategic health authorities. Where specialised services commissioning arrangements cross strategic health authority boundaries, the directorate of health and social care facilitates agreement and if necessary, determines disputes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jury trial
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to exclude those with a close connection to the justice system from jury service. [80500]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the proposals set out in the Government's White Paper "Justice for All", everyone will be eligible to do jury service, (subject to the requirements of age, electoral registration, residence and disqualification set out in section 1 of the Juries Act 1974) except the mentally ill. This will include those connected with the administration of justice.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve procedures for the issue and implementation of Antisocial Behaviour Orders through the courts. [81478]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]The legislative changes in the Police Reform Act 2002 extend the powers of courts to grant Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). These, combined with the new guidance, will improve their efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, we are working with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Judicial Studies Board to raise awareness and understanding of ASBOs, and provide training for magistrates and prosecutors. We will continue to review implementation of ASBO, and will make changes as necessary to ensure they are streamlined and unbureaucratic to use.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in the last 12 months for breach of an anti-social behaviour order in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales. [82377]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information, relating to breaches of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001 and is shown in the table. The analysis covers only those breaches by persons issued with ASBOs during this period and notified to the Home Office.
  416W

  Persons convicted for breach of anti-social behaviour orders Lancashire, north-west England and Wales—1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001

  Number of persons convicted

  Lancashire

  6

  North west England (including Lancashire)

  21

  Wales

  3

  Note:

  Figures cover only those proceedings relating to persons issued with ASBOs between 1 June 2000 and 31 December 2001 and notified to the Home Office. Persons are counted only once if they breached the same order on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in the last 12 months for breach of antisocial behaviour orders in(a) Somerset, (b) South West England and (c) England. [82610]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information, relating to breaches of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs), covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001 and is shown in the table. The analysis covers only those breaches by persons issued with ASBOs during this period and notified to the Home Office. Figures for Somerset only are not available centrally.

  Persons convicted for breach of antisocial behaviour orders, Avon and Somerset, South West England and—1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001

  Number of persons convicted

  Avon and Somerset

  5

  South West England (including Avon and Somerset)

  9

  England

  122

  Note:

  Figures cover only those proceedings relating to persons issued with ASBOs between 1 June 2000 and 31 December 2001 and notified to the Home Office. Persons are counted only once even if they breached the same order on more than one occasion.

  Asylum Seekers (Occupied Territories)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many claims for asylum have been made in the last two years by citizens of Israel who are refusing to serve in the armed forces of Israel in the Occupied Territories; [83556]

  (2) how many claims for asylum have been received in the last two years from Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. [83557]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applications are recorded by nationality only and therefore it is not possible to say how many of the applicants originated from the Occupied Territories. Furthermore, statistics on the reasons behind asylum claims are not compiled. The number of those who applied would therefore be available only by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.
  417W

  Magillagan Prison
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the appropriateness of HMP Magilligan as a holding centre for asylum seekers; and whether it is his policy that asylum seekers should share accommodation with people serving sentences for criminal offences. [83795]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following a review, in 2001, of the detention provision in Northern Ireland it was decided that all immigration detainees in Northern Ireland would be detained only at Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry and that Her Majesty's Prison Magilligan would no longer be used for immigration detention.

  Immigration detainees at Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry are detained in separate accommodation to convicted prisoners.

  It is our policy to transfer persons detained in Northern Ireland to immigration removal centres on the mainland unless a specific request is made to stay in Northern Ireland, in which case the detainee in question will continue to be held at Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police constabularies contributing police officers and civilians to the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina; how many each is seconding; and what the cost is to(a) each constabulary and (b) central government. [83398]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply

  The following list gives details of those police constabularies contributing officers to the European Union Police Mission from 1 January 2003. All constabularies are providing one officer unless otherwise indicated.
  Cornwall Avon and Somerset; Bedfordshire; Cheshire x3; City of London: Derbyshire; Devon and; Dorset; Durham; Gloucestershire; Grampian; Greater Manchester x2; Hampshire x2; Kent; Lancashire; Lincolnshire x2; Mersey side x4; Metropolitan x4; North Wales; North Yorkshire x3; Northamptonshire; South Wales x3; South Yorkshire; Surrey x2; Thames Valley; Warwickshire; West Midlands x6; West Yorkshire x2; Wiltshire

  The constabularies do not incur any costs as a result of seconding officers who are all volunteers and seconded with the agreement of Chief Constables. The full reimbursement of salary to constabularies and the travel, equipment and insurance costs of seconding officers are met by the joint MOD, FCO and DfID Global Conflict Prevention Pool. The cost for next financial year is estimated at just over 3 million

  Cannabis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to categorise cannabis as a herbal substance. [82236]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government welcomes the recent announcement by GW Pharmaceuticals that their advanced clinical trials into the development of a medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug have been 418W
  successfully completed and that they plan to seek marketing approval for the product from the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) early next year.

  This evaluation by the MCA is one which all prospective new medicines have to go through and is designed to protect public health.

  If product approval is forthcoming, the Government will seek Parliament's approval to make the necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine at the earliest opportunity. We recognise how eagerly awaited these changes are.

  Child Curfews
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been imposed. [82085]

  Mr. Denham
  Between February 2001, when curfew orders with electronic monitoring were extended to 10 to 15-year-olds, and 31 October 2002 the courts imposed 2,704 orders on young offenders of that age.

  Child Rescue Alert
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Child Rescue Alert programme will be piloted in Sussex; and what plans there are to extend this scheme to the rest of the UK. [83221]

  Hilary Benn
  Child Rescue Sussex Police was launched on 14 November and will run for six months.

  It is a pilot project sponsored by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and it will be for them to evaluate it and determine the value of extending this scheme. We await with interest the outcome of the evaluation.

  I understand that ACPO's Homicide Working Group will consider a report on the project in April, which will include recommendations about whether to extend the scheme.

  Children in Jail
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in the numbers of children being held in jails in England and Wales in the last 10 years. [82148]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of people aged under-18 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for 1992 to 2002 is given in the table.

  Number of people aged under-18 in Prison Service establishments at 30 June each year

  Year

  Number

  1992

  1,328

  1993

  1,304

  1994

  1,526

  1995

  1,675

  1996

  2,093

  1997

  2,479

  1998

  2,466

  1999

  2,422

  419W

  Number of people aged under-18 in Prison Service establishments at 30 June each year

  Year

  Number

  2000

  2,434

  2001

  2,448

  2002

  2,609

  Community Punishments
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many community service and community punishment orders have been made by the courts; how many have been breached; and how many breaches resulted in a custodial sentence being imposed in each of the last five years; [82098]

  (2) how many probation/community rehabilitation orders have been made by the courts; how many have been breached; and how many breaches resulted in a custodial sentence being imposed in each of the last five years. [82099]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2000", a copy of which is in the Library (Table 7.24 refers).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 7 October 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Muqtar Suufi Abubaker. [83428]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 November 2002

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 7 October 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ali Aredleer. [83429]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 November 2002.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letters of 26 April 2002 and 19 June 2002 of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire concerning the cost of police pensions. [83543]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to both letters was sent on 26 November 2002. I apologise for the considerable delay in responding.

  Recorded crime: number of offences recorded from 1997 to 2001–02

  Police force area/offence

  19971

  1997–982

  1998–993

  1999–2000

  2000–014

  2001–024

  Avon and Somerset

  Total racially aggravated offences5

  —

  —

  —

  240

  478

  700

  Total violent crime6

  12,176

  13,219

  14,985

  16,061

  19,071

  23,670

  Robbery of personal property7

  —

  —

  1,694

  2,177

  2,573

  4,585

  Drug offences8

  484

  461

  2,145

  2,017

  1,990

  1,860

  South-west Region9

  Total racially aggravated offences5

  —

  —

  —

  667

  1,216

  1,521

  Total violent crime6

  27,419

  28,814

  40,242

  43,986

  47,785

  53,840

  420W

  Crime Reduction Strategy
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made within Essex following the introduction of the Government's Crime Reduction Strategy. [80887]

  Mr. Denham
  The table outlines the Home Office crime reduction investment in Essex since the publication of the Crime Reduction Strategy in 1999. This encompasses the Basildon, Brentwood, Braintree, Castle Point, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon, Rochford, Southend, Tendring, Thurrock and Uttlesford Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas.

  Funding initiative

  Funding received (£)

  CCTV

  2,311,904

  Communities against drugs

  1,254,000

  Partnership development fund

  878,788

  Tackling domestic violence

  599,971

  Safer communities initiative

  429,599

  Small retailers in deprived areas

  183,126

  Community support officers

  118,735

  Reducing burglary initiative

  72,649

  Total

  5,848,772

  In addition, mainstream funding of £590 million has been allocated to Essex for policing since 1999.

  The targeted funding listed has helped to reduce crime in priority areas such as burglary dwelling, down 10.1 per cent., and drug offences, down by 14.8 per cent.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) racially aggravated offences, (b) violent crime, (c) robbery of personal property and (d) drug offences were recorded in (i) Somerset, (ii) South West England and (iii) England in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e)2001. [82609]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested statistics are given in the table.

  On 1 April 1998, there was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime, and an expansion of the offences covered. This resulted in an increase of crimes recorded by the police. Recorded crime figures before this date will therefore not be directly comparable.

  Avon and Somerset police force implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of its national implementation in April 2002. The effects of the Standard are explained in table footnote 9.
  421W

  Recorded crime: number of offences recorded from 1997 to 2001–02

  Police force area/offence

  19971

  1997–982

  1998–993

  1999–2000

  2000–014

  2001–024

  Robbery of personal property7

  —

  —

  2,657

  3,265

  3,694

  5,954

  Drug offences8

  1,705

  1,699

  9,471

  9,637

  8,922

  9,635

  England

  Total racially aggravated offences5

  —

  —

  —

  21,140

  24,303

  29,080

  Total violent crime6

  326,993

  332,683

  571,027

  662,527

  692,561

  773,680

  Robbery of personal property7

  —

  —

  55,645

  71,387

  82,010

  107,325

  Drug offences8

  21,627

  21,774

  126,196

  113,346

  105,107

  111,895

  1Recorded on a calendar year basis.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  3 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  4 Avon and Somerset implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of the national implementation date of April 2002. The 2001–02 figures for this force, and consequently those for the south west region will be affected by the standard, as have those figures for England. The impact of the standard will vary for different types of offence.

  5 Racially aggravated offences became notifiable to the police on 1 April 1999. The offences covered are: other wounding, harassment, common assault, criminal damage to a dwelling, criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling, criminal damage to a vehicle and other criminal damage.

  6 Violent crime is comprised of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  7 Robbery of personal property was recorded separately (from total robbery) as from 1 April 1998.

  8 Up until 1 April 1998, trafficking in controlled drugs was the only drugs-related offence recorded. After this date the offence coverage was expanded to include more drugs-related offences.

  9 The south west region comprises the following police forces: Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire.

  Drug Addiction
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence has been produced in the NACRO project funded by him comparing drug addiction of offenders, with special reference to Worksop. [82883]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As part of the drug testing pilot programme evaluation Worksop has been selected as a comparative site in the Nottinghamshire area. The National Association of Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) team will interview and track offenders who have a similar profile to those within the Nottingham pilot site to compare how their offending and drug misuse differs from those being drug tested. Interviewing began in late summer 2002 and NACRO is due to report in the autumn of 2003.

  Drug Convictions (Sentencing)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons convicted of drug dealing have received custodial sentences of more than 10 years in the last 12 months. [82932]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  42 persons in England and Wales were sentenced to at least 10 years immediate custody for drug dealing in the year 2000.

  The term dealing is taken to cover the following drug offences: possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply and unlawful import/export.

  Data for 2001 are not yet available.

  Drug Treatment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that workers at drop-in centres and centres for the homeless who specialise in preparing drug-users for treatment and 422W
  provide counselling and guidance to them should be required to notify the police of substance misuse. [83548]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 created offences for the occupier or persons concerned in the management of any premises to knowingly permit or suffer specified controlled drug misuse on their premises. Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 extended Section 8(d) of 1971 from the smoking of cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to administering or using any controlled drug. However, it was agreed by Parliament, during the passage of the amending legislation, that notes of the Guidance would be published on the operation of the new provision before it was enacted.

  Draft notes for guidance were accordingly prepared and sent out for wide consultation by the Home Office on 19 September. These explained the background to the change and how it was proposed to operate it. The guidance included a sentence to the effect that occupiers and managers of premises who suspect drug misuse should contact local police at an early stage to prevent it. It further explained that failure to inform and co-operate with the police exposes individuals to possible prosecution. However the Guidance also described examples of harm reduction factors which would need to be taken into account by the police when deciding, based on the public interest, whether or not to instigate a prosecution.

  The consultation exercise closed on 8 November. A decision will be taken on the issue of the Guidance Notes once the responses to the consultation exercise have been fully analysed and considered.

  Draft notes for guidance were accordingly prepared and sent out for wide consultation by the Home Office on 19 September. These explained the background to the change and how it was proposed to operate it. The guidance included a sentence to the effect that occupiers and managers of premises who suspect drug misuse

  423W
  should contact local police at an early stage to prevent it. It further explained that failure to inform and co-operate with the police exposes individuals to possible prosecution. However the Guidance also described examples of harm reduction factors which would need to be taken into account by the police when deciding, based on the public interest, whether or not to instigate a prosecution.

  The consultation exercise closed on 8 November. A decision will be taken on the issue of the Guidance Notes once the responses to the consultation exercise have

  Entitlement Card
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-ordination he has undertaken of Department assessment of the implications of the entitlement card proposals for the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. [83583]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]Home Office officials met with counterparts in the Scottish Executive to discuss issues of particular relevance to the devolved administration, prior to the publication of the consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud. These contacts have continued during the consultation exercise.

  The consultation paper states that any legislation to establish an entitlement card scheme would be enacted by the Westminster Parliament, as any scheme would need to operate on a UK-wide basis if it was to be effective as an immigration control measure.

  One of the detailed options for the scope of any legislation would allow organisations to link services to a card scheme via their own legislation. Under these arrangements, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive and Parliament to decide whether to link the services they are responsible for to a card scheme. However, they could not prevent the issuing of a card for purposes which are outside the scope of their powers, for example, the UK card as a travel document in Europe.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in the UK against surgeons carrying out female genital mutilation in each of the last 10 years. [82208]

  Hilary Benn
  Information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, shows that there were no prosecutions brought for such offences in England and Wales in the years 1991 to 2000.

  Information for 2001 is due for publication in December.

  Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

  Immigration (Overstayers)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the applications made under the regularisation scheme for overstayers have been(a) decided, (b) granted and (c) refused;
  424W
  how many cases are (i) under consideration and (ii) awaiting validation; and when he expects all cases to have been decided. [83471]

  Beverley Hughes
  A total of 3,379 cases have been decided under the regularisation scheme for overstayers. Of these 2,954 have been granted and 425 refused. As of 22 November 2002 11,936 cases have to be finally determined. Of these 9,114 are awaiting consideration by the Integrated Case Work Directorate North and 2,822 are being dealt with in other areas of the Integrated Case Work Directorate. Considerable extra resources, have now been allocated to the consideration of these cases and it is anticipated that all will have been decided by April 2003.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was available to be spent by the Metropolitan Police in each of the last 10 years. [82476]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]Net revenue budget requirements for the Metropolitan Police Service in each of the last 10 years are set out in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  782.0

  1994–95

  813.0

  1995–961

  1,661.0

  1996–97

  1,676.0

  1997–98

  1,720.0

  1998–99

  1,778.0

  1999–2000

  1,836.0

  2000–0l2

  1,830.0

  2001–02

  1,980.1

  2002–033

  2,037.7

  1 Police grant was redefined to be within Budget Requirements from 1995–96. Before then, police grant was deducted from expenditure to show net expenditure. Since then, expenditure has been shown before deduction of police grant.

  2The Metropolitan Police Service budget in 2000–01 is not directly comparable with previous years. Parts of the metropolitan police district transferred to Essex, Herts and Surrey from 1 April 2000.

  3 The grant figure for 2002–03 is not directly comparable with that for 2001–02 owing to changes in funding for the National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service. The figure for 2001–02 comparable with the 2002–03 provision would have been £1,941.9 million.

  Source:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police support staff in the Metropolitan Police area there where in each of the last 10 years; and on what tasks they were employed. [82479]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]The information requested in respect of the number of support staff in the Metropolitan Police is set out in the table which has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. During the period in question the Metropolitan Police undertook an outsourcing programme and a number of staff transferred to the private sector in areas such as Information Technology (IT) vehicle maintenance and property services. The
  425W
  figures provided therefore include privately contracted staff as well as Metropolitan Police authority employed staff.

  In response to what tasks they are employed on, civilians perform more than 150 different tasks and it is not possible to list them all. In general civilians employed in borough operational command units undertake personnel, finance or communications support. If employed in central departments they will cover issues such as recruitment, personnel, finance and procurement. In addition the Metropolitan Police Service employ a number of specialist civilian employees who undertake work such as IT specialists, Scenes of Crime examiners as well as traffic wardens, control room staff and station reception staff.

  Year end

  Number of support staff

  31 March 1993

  14,663

  31 March 1994

  14,483

  31 March 1995

  14,337

  31 March 1996

  14,368

  31 March 1997

  13,492

  31 March 1998

  12,563

  31 March 1999

  11,390

  31 March 2000

  10,759

  31 March 1901

  10,197

  31 March 1902

  10,548

  Mr. Robert Brown
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice and other assistance has been made available to Mr. Robert Brown following the recent quashing of his conviction; and if he will make a statement. [82227]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]The Home Office-funded advice service being piloted by the Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal Courts of Justice for individuals released on appeal against conviction was established earlier this year. The project staff were made aware of Mr. Brown's case prior to his release and have sought to contact him twice by telephone to offer assistance. They have not yet been able to establish contact. An application for compensation for wrongful conviction has been lodged at the Home Office and is being treated as a priority.

  Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [82670]

  Hilary Benn
  The multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), which the police and probation services were required by statute to establish in each of the 42 areas of England and Wales from April 2001, have already strengthened the effectiveness of the assessment and management of the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. An assessment of the new arrangements was set out in the central annual report on the MAPPA, which I published on 22 July 2002, a copy of which was placed in the Library.
  426W

  Paedophiles (Internet)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take further measures to prevent advances to children for sexual purposes(a) on the internet and (b) elsewhere. [82675]

  Hilary Benn
  This Government's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet set up in May 2001 has developed proposals for a criminal offence to tackle the "grooming" of children by paedophiles online or offline. This is intended to allow prosecution at an early stage when children are being groomed, before an existing sexual offence has been committed. In addition, the proposals include the creation of a new civil protection order relating to behaviour towards a child for an illegal or harmful sexual purpose. These proposals were announced in the Government's command paper on Sex Offence Reform, "Protecting the Public" on 19 November 2002.

  In addition, the task force has developed, run and now evaluated a successful national awareness campaign targeted at both children and parents about internet safety. Independent evaluation of the campaigns shows significantly improved awareness of the key messages in both target audiences. The task force is now considering that evaluation and how to build on the momentum created.

  Practical online child protection measures have included draft models of good practice for service providers in respect of chat, instant messaging and web services. These encourage, among other things, clear and accessible safety messages and advice and user-friendly mechanisms for reporting abuse. The drafts are being considered by the wider industry through the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX).

  The task force will next be looking at: consideration of the extent to which the criminal law currently covers unsuitable material being sent to children and all forms of indecent representations of children; an assessment of the new challenges posed by development of 3G mobile phones; and developing basic training materials for child protection staff on children's internet use.

  In parallel with the task force, the UK has played a leading role in the development of a G8 strategy for protecting children from sexual exploitation on the internet. The strategy, which is not yet finalised, will cover issues such as: victim identification; intelligence gathering and sharing; location of suspects; enforcement tools and training: awareness building and prevention; and police working with industry and non-governmental organisation's (NGOs). The task force will take forward the UK's domestic actions where it can to support the leading role played by the UK so far in this field.

  The "Protecting the Public" command paper, published on 19 November 2002 also included details of proposed sex offence reform that will further protect children from sexual activity. New or expanded offences of adult sexual activity with a child, familial sexual abuse of a child, commercial sexual exploitation of a child, sexual activity between minors and abuse of trust are designed to protect children from those who seek to exploit or abuse them sexually.
  427W

  Police (Pensions and Staffing)
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many former police officers are on retirement pensions; and how many police there are in service; [82171]

  (2) what the average age of retirement for police has been over the last five years; [82176]

  (3) what the average pension received by a police officer is; and what percentage of final salary a police officer is entitled to after 30 years service. [82179]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]Specific information relating to all forces in England and Wales about the number of former police officers with pensions, their average retirement age and the average level of their pensions is not held centrally.

  We estimate that about 125,000 former officers and dependents are receiving pensions and that about three quarters of these will be former officers. As at 31 March 2002, there were 129,603 police officers in England and Wales.

  Although national information is not available, figures provided by the Staffordshire Police for the average age of retirement of police officers from that force either with an ordinary or ill-health pension are in given in the table.

  Based on data from 11 forces we estimate that the average amount received by a former officer retiring with an ordinary pension or ill-health pension, not including the lump sum, is about £11,800 per annum. After 30 years of service and contributions to the Police Pension Scheme, a police officer is entitled to 40/60ths of his or her average pensionable pay for the final year of service, or one half average pensionable pay if he or she elects to commute a quarter of his or her pension for a lump sum.

  Year

  Average age

  1997

  48.15

  1998

  48.73

  1999

  49.43

  2000

  50.41

  2001

  57.75

  Policing Priorities
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidance he has sent to police authorities on policing priorities. [82448]

  Mr. Denham
  On 20 November I laid the National Policing Plan before Parliament as required by section 1 of the Police Reform Act 2002. As I explained in my letter to hon. Members that day, the plan sets out for the first time in one document, the priorities for the police service in England and Wales for the next three years 428W
  together with the performance targets and indicators against which delivery will be measured. The strategic priorities for the police service in 2003–06 are as follows:

  Tackling antisocial behaviour and disorder

  Reducing volume, street, drug-related and violent and gun crime in line with local and national targets

  Combating serious and organised crime operating across force boundaries

  Increasing the number of offences brought to justice.

  The plan contains a planning framework as a tool to aid implementation. I shall shortly be issuing guidance on local three-year strategies.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison places there are in England and Wales; what the prison population is; and what plans he has to increase the number of prison places over the next three years. [82090]

  Hilary Benn
  As at 21 November 2002, the prison population of England and Wales stood at 72,477. On the same date, useable operational capacity was 72,882.

  £60 million has been made available to provide 740 additional places by March 2004. This is in addition to funding from the 2002 Budget that will provide 2,320 places by March 2003, together with 400 places at Birmingham prison, which are funded by the 2000 spending review and are scheduled to open in April 2004.

  Prison Service plans to build two new private prisons at Ashford (near Heathrow) and Peterborough in Cambridgeshire have recently been approved. These two new prisons will together provide around 1,300 places by 2004–05.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners in UK prisons under 35-years-old have served time in young offenders institutions. [82825]

  Hilary Benn
  No information is collected centrally on which establishments prisoners have served previous sentences in. Information relating to prisoners in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive (Helen Liddell) and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid) respectively.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what differences there are in securing(a) town visits, (b) home leave and (c) early release under the tagging system between Scottish and English domicile prisoners held in prisons in England; [83578]

  (2) what differences in status and rights there are between Scottish domicile and foreign national prisoners held in prisons in England. [83579]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]All convicted prisoners located in prisons in England and Wales, irrespective of where they are domiciled, have the same status and rights under the Prison Act 1952. The Prison Service does not separately define prisoners domiciled in Scotland.
  429W
  Prisoners detained in England and Wales who have close family ties with Scotland may apply to serve their sentences there, in accordance with the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Foreign national prisoners may apply to serve their sentences in their country of nationality, providing there is an international agreement in force between the United Kingdom and the country concerned.

  There are a number of forms of temporary release available to prisoners at different stages of the sentence. The rules do not differentiate between prisoners domiciled in Scotland and those domiciled in England. However, some forms of temporary release are for the purpose of allowing prisoners to visit their homes during the day in order to begin their resettlement. It may not be practical, therefore, for prisoners domiciled some distance away from their prison to benefit from this type of release. Other forms of temporary release, which include an overnight stay, can be taken in Scotland.

  Prisoners sentenced in England and Wales cannot be given Home Detention Curfew (tagging) to an address in Scotland.

  Prisoners (Dental Treatment)
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are awaiting dental treatment in each prison in the UK; and what the length of waiting times are. [83180]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available. However, arrangements are being developed to collect data about waiting times for urgent and routine appointments in prisons in England and Wales. Matters concerning Scotland are the responsibility of the devolved Administration. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Quat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose a change in the law to make illegal the use of Quat. [82235]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs keeps under review the extent to which Quat (or Khat) is misused, and whether that misuse has harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem. The matter will be considered at the Council's next meeting. Any decision about the legal status of Khat will be taken in the light of the Council's advice.

  Rape
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Department will publish its review of its action plan to implement the recommendations of the HMCPSI/HMIC joint investigation into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape; and if he will make a statement. [80548]

  Hilary Benn
  Implementation of the action plan is progressing well. Aninter-agency working group, led by the Home Office and with representation from the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Court 430W
  Service, is monitoring progress against the agreed action points. The group is also considering the issues of wider evaluation to assess the impact of the action plan on the ground, and the dissemination of this information.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take further measures to ensure that released sex offenders are not re-housed near schools or children's play areas. [82672]

  Hilary Benn
  We are planning to introduce measures in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Sexual Offences Bill which will further strengthen the recently introduced multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), which have improved significantly the work of the police and probation services in protecting the public from sexual and violent offenders.

  The new measures include a sentence for dangerous offenders, which will ensure that they are only released when they are no longer regarded as a risk; and some further tightening up of sex offender registration. Additionally, we are keen that full use is made of sex offender orders and restraining orders, which can be very effective in helping protect schools and play areas from sexual offenders. In early December we are to issue new guidance to the police on using sex offender orders in light of our experience of best practice and of the new provisions we introduced in the Police Reform Act 2002.

  Stolen Art and Artefacts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of stolen art and artefacts in the last year for which information is available. [80984]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not collect such information centrally.

  Street Crime
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Ministers allocated responsibility for delivery in the police force areas covered by the street crime initiative will continue to supervise policing in those areas; and if he will make a statement. [83680]

  Mr. Denham
  The Street Crime Action Group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, agreed that it would be helpful for each of the 10 street crime areas to be supported by a Government Minister. The role of the sponsor Ministers is not to supervise policing of the street crime areas, which falls to the commissioner or relevant chief constable.

  The role of the sponsor Ministers is to undertake visits to the areas they have been allocated, to meet with, and support local agencies, promote a shared approach to tackling street crime at a local level, and to identify issues on which further action by government agencies would be helpful. The sponsor Ministers will continue to carry out this role.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra support he plans to give to victims and witnesses as part of the Street Crimes Court Initiative. [81473]
  431W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]One of the aims of the Street Crime Initiative is to improve the support for victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process. Enhanced victim and witness facilities are available in the 70 street crime courts designated to deal with street crime cases across the 10 force areas participating in the initiative. Forty five of these courts have had physical improvements made (costing over £4 million), including separate entrances and waiting rooms, to provide suitable facilities and support to victims and witnesses to protect them from intimidation while at court.

  An entire witness suite, launched on 21 November, has been created at the Inner London Crown court to serve the London courts. This allows vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give evidence to any court connected with ISDN lines through a video link. Witnesses using this system enter the court using their own secure entrance, and have no need to visit the public part of the Court, ensuring that they do not come into contact with the offender.

  Local Victim Support schemes across the 10 areas are working in support of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Premium Service, which has enhanced working arrangements between prosecution teams, courts and Victim Support and the Witness Service. The focus on supporting and guiding the victims of street crime through the process from the moment they report a crime is particularly important to ensuring an effective outcome through the court process.

  Witnesses
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reform of the law relating to the competence and compellability of witnesses in court proceedings. [81469]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]There are no plans to reform the law relating to the compellability of witnesses in court proceedings.

  Under section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the general presumption is that at every stage in criminal proceedings all persons, whatever their age, are competent to act as witnesses and give evidence unless it appears to the court the person in question cannot understand the questions put to him and give answers to the court that can be understood.

  When considering the competence of a person to be a witness the court should take into consideration whether the quality of the person's evidence can be improved by the assistance of special measures, in particular the use of aids to communication and intermediaries. The use of aids to communication for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses was implemented in the Crown courts on 24 July 2002 and the implementation of the use of intermediaries will be considered following the evaluation of pilot projects which are due to commence next year.
  432W

  Women Prisoners
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of sentence is for women convicted of drug offences in the last year for which figures are available. [82863]

  Hilary Benn
  The average sentence of immediate custody imposed of women convicted of drug offences in 2000 in England and Wales was 17.5 months.

  Data for 2001 are not yet available.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women convicted in each of the last five years were(a) sent to prison and (b) given community penalties. [82877]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Women found guilty of all offences at all courts and sentenced to immediate custody and to community sentences, England and Wales, 1996 to 2000

  Women found guilty

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Given community sentences

  1996

  260,982

  4,403

  16,592

  1997

  217,137

  5,506

  18,780

  1998

  235,578

  6,567

  21,052

  1999

  219,980

  7,504

  22,169

  2000

  256,018

  7,900

  23,625

  Data for 2001 are not yet available.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were sent to prison on remand in each of the last five years; and how many where subsequently acquitted. [82878]

  Hilary Benn
  The requested information is in the following tables.

  The first table represents the number of female prisoners that were received into prisons in England and Wales onto remand over the whole of 2001. These individuals may subsequently have been sentenced.

  The second table represents female prisoners who were remanded in custody in England and Wales at some stage by a magistrates court, and who were acquitted at some point in 2001.

  The two tables do not necessarily cover the same individuals. They are from different data sources and some individuals will be acquitted in a different year to when they were sent to prison on remand.

  Number of remand receptions

  1996

  4,221

  1997

  5,124

  1998

  6,258

  1999

  6,721

  2000

  6,584

  20011

  7,191

  1 Provisional

  433W

  Women remanded in custody at some stage in magistrates court proceedings

  Estimated percentage acquitted

  1996

  24

  1997

  23

  1998

  21

  1999

  20

  2000

  21

  2001

  n/a

  Women's Prison (Ashford, Middlesex)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the delay in signing the contract for a women's prison at Ashford (Middlesex). [83369]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]The contract between Her Majesty's Prison Service and UKDS for the new prison at Ashford is expected to be signed shortly. Following usual practice I will write to the hon. Member before the contract is signed.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under-18 year olds were in each of the last 10 years held in custody in England and Wales on 30 September; broken down by those in(a) each prison, (b) each local authority secure unit and (c) each secure training centre; and in each case how many persons were held aged (i) 10 to 12 (ii) 13 to 14 and (iii) 15 to 16 and (iv) 17 to 18. [81772]

  Hilary Benn
  The requested information has been placed in the Library. Information is not held in the detail requested prior to 1995.

  Information on juveniles held in local authority secure units and secure training units was not collected centrally prior to April 2000.

  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the practice of remanding 15 to 16-year-old boys in prison. [82823]

  Hilary Benn
  For juveniles a custodial remand should always be the last option considered by the courts. We have provided a wide range of community alternatives including bail support and supervision schemes, tagging on bail and the intensive supervision and surveillance programme.

  Where a custodial remand is necessary 15 and 16-year-old boys are remanded to Prison Service accommodation, unless the court considers them particularly vulnerable, in which case they could be remanded to a local authority secure unit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Works Expenditure
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was(a) the total cost of the works carried out to Old Palace Yard and Abingdon
  434W
  Street over the course of 2001 and 2002 and (b) the contribution of the House of Commons Commission to such works. [83397]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission has made no contribution to the cost of the road works, for which the authorities of the House of Lords are responsible.

  The House of Commons has paid £33,384 in 2002–03 towards the cost of the Golden Jubilee Sundial.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Education
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to ensure that every child in the world receives a free basic education as guaranteed under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [83402]

  Clare Short
  Unfortunately there has been little international effort to implement the rights to education outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the past.

  The Government are strongly committed to mobilising greater international efforts to meet the millennium development goals. The target for education is to ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. We are working with the UN and international financial institutions and national development agencies to heighten commitments to meet the target.

  Since 1997 we have committed £700 million to basic education. Forecast commitment for the next five years are £1.3 billion. Of this £500 million will go to Africa and £800 million will go to Asia. These spending figures are forecasts and depend on agreeing quality programmes with partners.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about UK measures to avoid starvation in Ethiopia. [82997]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much emergency aid her Department will provide to Ethiopia during the present food shortage; what form that aid will take; when it will be delivered; and if she will make a statement. [83156]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on 26 November 2002,Official Report, columns 201–02W.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the remaining debts for the heavily indebted poor countries to be cancelled. [83195]
  435W
  Clare Short
  So far, 26 countries out of a total of 37 eligible countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Of these, six countries have reached Completion Point and have received full debt relief. A further 20 countries have reached their Decision Point and are receiving interim debt relief. We expect the bulk of these countries to reach Completion Point in the next two years; when they, too, will receive full debt relief. It is difficult to predict when the other 11 countries will qualify for HIPC relief, as many are still affected by conflict and governance problems. Of these, Central African Republic, DR Congo, Comoros and Cote d'lvoire may reach Decision Point in 2003 but, in some cases, this will depend on progress towards peace. The remaining countries are a long way from qualifying as they are affected by conflict or have serious governance concerns; these are Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department is giving to Malawi to(a) treat and (b) prevent HIV/AIDS. [83190]

  Clare Short
  My Department is providing support for the National HIV/AIDS Strategic Framework by means of a £25 million sexual and reproductive health programme. A further £10 million supports the provision of sexual and reproductive health services by a local non-Governmental organisation (Banja La Mtsogolo).

  The UK is contributing £300 million to the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, and Malawi was recently granted $200 million from this fund to be utilised over the next five years.

  DFID has also been involved with Government and other donors in the development and establishment of the National AIDS Commission (NAC). NAG operates as a trust, relatively independent of Government, and is responsible for the preparation of a national strategy and action plan, which aims to improve prevention, care and support and impact mitigation. DFID will be strengthening its support to the Government of Malawi through NAC, the Ministry of Health and Population and other Ministries which are improving their responses to HIV in the workplace and the communities they serve, and to a stronger national Civil Society response.

  All DFID programmes now include sector specific activities to help address HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects Malawi to achieve the Millennium Development goals. [83191]

  Clare Short
  Malawi ranks as one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita income of US$170 in 2001. An equally low UN Human Development Index indicates that progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) will be slow.
  436W
  Specific challenges include attainment of the MDGs for poverty reduction and gender equality. There have been gains in achievement of universal primary education, but this is marked by concerns regarding the quality of education and participation rates for girls. Progress in achievement of MDGs for child mortality and maternal health has been poor; maternal mortality has doubled to 1,120:100,000 since 1992. There are indications that the high incidence of HIV/AIDS (currently 16 per cent.) and its coincide with the present food crisis, will lead to further increases in mortality. Life expectancy has already dropped below 40 years of age. There are also growing problems with governance standards.

  Malawi launched its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in April. PRS monitoring will be linked to MDGs. My Department is providing support in partnership with other donors, to ensure this is appropriately robust.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) the level of debt interest payments made by Malawi and (b) the effects on poverty eradication in the country. [83194]

  Clare Short
  According to the Reserve Bank of Malawi, in 2001, external debt service was Malawian Kwacha 6.4 billion (US$78 million) and of this (30 per cent.) Malawian Kwacha 1.9 billion (US$23 million) was in respect of payments.

  Malawi remains eligible for interim debt relief under the Enhanced HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative (US$91.4 million in total). In 2001 Malawi benefited from US$27 million of this. In 2002, the position is different. Although Malawi could have received a further US$50 million in debt relief, this amount has not been forthcoming because of the Government's unsatisfactory economic and financial management performance during the year. The country is currently off track with its IMF programme and has serious problems of corruption. The Minister of Finance has promised to announce a number of remedial measures this next week and the IMF is expected to return to Malawi in mid-December to discuss progress against these. Assuming Malawi can get back on track with the IMF in the near future, the Government could still be on schedule to reach its HIPC completion point by mid 2003. At that stage, all of the debt covered by the HIPC initiative would be irrevocably cancelled. In addition, Malawi would be reimbursed for the relief it is currently losing. HIPC debt relief should be used for increased spending on health, education, and other social priorities.

  Domestic debt, which stood at MK20.2 billion (14 per cent, of GDP) in July 2002 and the rising domestic interest bill is also a concern. This underscores the importance of Government implementing the necessary remedial actions to restore fiscal stability and thus reduce the need to borrow domestically.

  Maternal Mortality (Africa)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of rates of maternal mortality in
  437W
  Africa; and what recent evaluation she has made of the impact of her Department's programmes on rates of maternal mortality. [80550]

  Clare Short
  Improving maternal health is a Millennium Development Goal (MDG) and the most difficult goal to meet. DFID is committed to working towards achieving this goal and the associated target to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015.

  Maternal mortality is difficult to measure and most poor countries have poor systems and lack reliable estimates of the number of women who die in pregnancy. We have to rely on standard surveys of maternal mortality as and when they are undertaken. Monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of DFID's programmes tend to be against proxy indicators. An internationally accepted proxy indicator for maternal mortality reduction is the proportion of births attended by skilled attendants. Using this indicator we can see progress in Latin America and the Caribbean, but in Sub-Saharan Africa where poverty is deepest and HIV/AIDS makes progress more difficult, there has been no significant change. DFID has and will continue to work with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Bank and others to develop new and improved tools and methods to measure maternal mortality and evaluate the effectiveness of maternal and neo-natal healthcare strategies.

  We will continue to work bilaterally and with multilateral agencies towards the reduction of maternal mortality. Greater investment in health and more political commitment from national governments and international development agencies is needed to address this issue.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent reports she has received about displaced Zimbabwean farmworkers and their relocation; who is responsible for their relocation; how many people her Department estimates will be affected; what impact she believes this will have on the humanitarian situation in(a) Zimbabwe and (b) bordering countries; what representations she has made to (i) SADC and (ii) EU countries on this matter; and if she will make a statement. [83042]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working closely with the UN and other donors who share our concern about destitute farm workers in Zimbabwe. They are among the most vulnerable people in the current humanitarian crisis. EU member states and SADC countries are aware of this.

  At present the large majority of commercial farm workers remain on site, or with neighbouring farm worker families, alongside new settlers. Their longer-term future is uncertain. Some are moving to take jobs with new employers, often on a casual basis. Several thousand people have been forcibly evicted, particularly from farms allocated to new commercial scale farmers. But there is no present evidence of systematic displacement. The UN plans a new survey of the situation in January.
  438W
  DFID is already supporting supplementary feeding for 49,000 children in farm schools, and general feeding of 50,000 people in farm villages. We are ready to increase our support as agencies scale up their operations.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Libra IT System
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the overspend was on the Department's new Libra IT system; what fees were paid to the consultants on the system; and if she will make a statement. [83649]

  Yvette Cooper
  The contract with Fujitsu Services for the delivery of Libra has been varied twice since initial completion in December 1998. This has resulted in changes to the baseline making it inappropriate to compare spend to date across an original and two variants of the contract. The actual spend against the contract can be summarised as follows:

  Original ICL Contract Dec 1998

  Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 10.5 years— £184m

  Negotiated ICL Contract May 2000

  Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 14.5 years—£319m

  Negotiated Fujitsu Services Contract July 2002

  Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 8.5 years—£232m

  Total contracted charges paid by 30 Sept 02—£64.8m (This is included in the £232 current contract)

  In addition, the Department has spent £9.6 million on the management of the project over the same period, of which £1.4m covered consultancy costs.

  Witness Payments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to publish the results of his consultation on payments to witnesses; and if he will make a statement. [83539]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor intends to publish a paper summarising the responses to the consultation early next year.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Drugs Funding
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on how additional money for drugs was distributed to boards and trusts in Northern Ireland by the Department of Health in the last 12 months. [83040]

    Mr. Browne
    As regards illicit drugs, additional resources from the Northern Ireland Drug Campaign have been allocated to targets in the Regional Action Plan, which were agreed as priorities by the Working Groups, set up as part of the Joint Implementation Model. The Executive endorsed the Joint Implementation Model in May 2001.
    439W
    The Treatment Working Group has allocated resources for priority services through the eight Community Addiction Teams, based in Health and Social Services Trusts. No additional resources were supplied to Health and Social Services Boards who are all members of the Treatment Working Group.

    In relation to prescribed drugs, on 21 August 2002 Boards were allocated a further £3 million to help meet the cost of new, effective but highly expensive specialist drugs already being prescribed in the hospital sector. This money was, as is customary, issued in accordance with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's capitation formula for sharing out resources between Boards.

    It is for each Board to decide on the distribution of its share to the Trusts concerned, in light of the needs of their respective populations. I understand that these resources are being directed towards a range of existing pressures including those related to severe mental illness, high-risk infections, cystic fibrosis, Crohn's disease, Fabry's disease, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

    Fishermen
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to ensure the livelihoods of fishermen are safeguarded. [82027]

    Mr. Pearson
    I fully recognise the concerns about the future of livelihoods of those depending on a viable and sustainable fisheries industry in Northern. I have recently met representatives of the catching sector, and with processors as well as local elected representatives concerned with the future of the industry. They have briefed me in considerable detail on the difficulties which the industry faces at the moment, and of the responsible efforts they have made in recent years to allow declining stocks of fish in the Irish Sea to recover. In acknowledging the gravity of the current situation, and the seriousness of the scientific advice on the state of key commercial stocks in the Irish Sea, I also recognise that a viable and sustainable industry is important, not just for those directly involved in fishing and fish processing, but for the wider community. I have given a commitment to work energetically in the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, particularly between now and the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels just before Christmas, to ensure that the Northern Ireland dimension to this complex and difficult problem is not overlooked. I will meet the DEFRA Fisheries Minister to ensure that the Northern Ireland dimension is fully recognised in the UK position during the Fisheries Council bilaterals later this month.

    Poverty
    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to combat poverty in Northern Ireland. [83102]

    Mr. Browne
    New Targeting Social Need (TSN) is Northern Ireland's main policy for tackling poverty and social exclusion. New TSN aims to tackle social need and social exclusion by targeting efforts and available resources within existing Departmental programmes towards people, groups and areas in greatest social need.
    440W
    New TSN is being implemented by all Northern Ireland Government Departments and relevant agencies providing a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to tackling poverty and social disadvantage.

    Action Plans have been developed by each Department containing the actions and targets through which they deliver New TSN. Every Department reviews its Action Plan every year and updates it to take account of progress, building in new targets to follow those completed.

    The New TSN Annual Report 2002 will be published week commencing 1 December 2002. It will provide specific examples of the measures taken by Departments to combat poverty in Northern Ireland. We have commissioned an independent external evaluation of New Targeting Social Need in order to assess the way in which the policy has been implemented so far and to examine its impact. The outcome of the evaluation will feed into future thinking on New TSN.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many funded places in playgroups and nursery schools have been awarded for children aged three years and under in Northern Ireland; and how many children in their pre-school year have not been provided with a funded pre-school place in Northern Ireland in each of the last two years. [83235]

    Jane Kennedy
    The funded places allocated to private and voluntary providers are only available to children in their immediate pre-school year— those aged between three years two months and four years two months. Places in the statutory sector are, as has been the case since the early 1970s, open to children from two years old to the lower limit of compulsory school age. The number of children attending statutory nursery schools and units who had not attained the age of three (the basis on which data is collected) by the date of the schools census was 992 in the 2000–01 school year and 1,423 in the 2001–02 school year.

    In the current school year I expect places to be provided for more than 90 per cent, of the relevant cohort of children. Given that participation in pre-school education is voluntary, this level of provision should be sufficient at regional level to meet the expected demand. However, there may be occasions where a funded place is not available in a specific locality but no information is collected centrally on such cases.

    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend existing legislation in Northern Ireland to ensure that priority is given to providing a funded place for each child in immediate pre-school year. [83236]

    Jane Kennedy
    Under the current pre-school admissions regulations, statutory nursery schools and units are required, in all cases, to give applications in respect of children in their immediate pre-school year priority over those in respect of younger children. The funded places allocated in the voluntary/private sector are only available to children in their immediate pre-school year. I am therefore content that the current arrangements are sufficient.
    441W

    Research Assessment Exercise
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will allocate resources to the University of Ulster and Queen's University, Belfast in line with their performance in the Research Assessment Exercise. [83460]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Draft Budget approved by the Executive prior to suspension contained an increase in line with inflation for university research funding. The final Budget proposals will be published in December. Until then I am not in a position to comment on the matter.

    Rural Rate Relief
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards introducing a rural rates relief scheme to assist access to rural retail and Post Office services in Northern Ireland. [82683]

    Mr. Pearson
    On 28 March 2002 the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that the proposed Northern Ireland scheme, which was due to come into effect in October 2002, should be suspended following an assessment that to proceed with the scheme as outlined in the original legislation would not have the desired effect.

    Since then options for a more workable scheme have been considered by my officials along with colleagues in Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and relevant agencies.

    As the outcomes of the wider Review of Rating Policy and the Non-Domestic Revaluation were likely to impact on any new Rural Rate Relief Scheme, my predecessor as Minister of Finance and Personnel, Dr. Sean Farren, decided to defer putting forward alternatives until both these exercises were completed. Both the Review and the Revaluation are nearing completion and I will shortly be considering the implications for the Rural Relief Scheme— taking account of alternative business reliefs that may emerge from the Review and the impact analysis emerging from the Revaluation exercise.

    Sustainability Strategy
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83504]

    Angela Smith
    Under devolution, the Northern Ireland Executive's first Programme for Government (which set out the plans and priorities of the devolved Administration) included a commitment that sustainable development would be a key theme running through the Executive's work and priorities. This theme has been reflected in subsequent editions of the Programme for Government.

    In line with this commitment, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, which has lead responsibility for sustainable development, earlier this year published a consultation paper entitled
    442W
    "Promoting Sustainable Living", which set out proposals for a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland.

    The responses to the consultation exercise are currently being analysed. This work will take account of the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Thereafter officials will bring forward a draft Northern Ireland Sustainable Development Strategy for consideration by Ministers.

    Apple Industry
    David Burnside
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the vacant post of top fruit adviser for the apple industry; and what the timescale is for an appointment to this position. [80110]

    Mr. Pearson
    The position of top fruit adviser in the Agri-Food Development Service is vacant due to the promotion of the previous incumbent. This officer is currently providing support to the local top fruit sector through his current role as senior horticulture adviser.

    The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development does intend to fill the vacant post of top fruit adviser by April 2003 provided that a suitably qualified person can be recruited.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Cabinet Papers (Work and Pensions)
      Mr. Kirkwood
      To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Cabinet papers prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions in the session 2001–02. [83868]

      The Prime Minister
      It is established practice under section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to proceedings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees.

      Degree Awards
      Mr. George Howarth
      To ask the Prime Minister what research papers his policy unit has produced on allowing private institutions to award degrees; what costings the unit has made of the cost implications; and if he will place copies in the Library. [84140]

      The Prime Minister
      Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

      Government Performance
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Prime Minister what system he adopts for assessing the performance of Members of the Government; and to what extent he uses a system based on self-assessment. [84118]

      The Prime Minister
      The Ministerial Code provides guidance to Ministers on the standards and conduct expected of them.
      443W

      Intelligence Services Commissioner
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Prime Minister what disciplinary action was taken against the individuals responsible for errors discussed in the report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner for 2001. [83199]

      The Prime Minister
      The agency concerned has dealt with each incident in the appropriate way. As the Intelligence Services Commissioner's report makes clear, those concerned acted entirely in good faith. Lessons have been learned from each incident to help ensure that the errors are not repeated.

    SCOTLAND

      Employment
      Mr. Peter Duncan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Scottish Executive to review the role played by Scottish Enterprise in generating employment in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [82430]

      Mrs. Liddell
      I meet regularly with colleagues in the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise to discuss the Scottish economy. The labour market in Scotland is in healthy shape; employment is close to historic highs and the unemployment rate is around the lowest for a generation.

      Grants
      Mr. McLoughlin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the grants funded by her Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply, and if she will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82190]

      Mrs. Liddell
      My Department does not provide grants to individual members of the public or organisations.

      Media
      Mr. Peter Duncan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed plurality in the Scottish media with the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. [82432]

      Mrs. Liddell
      I meet my right hon. Friend regularly to discuss a range of relevant issues, including those covered by the Communications Bill which was published last week.

      Shipyards
      Mr. Sarwar
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the effect that implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations will have on Scottish shipyards. [81007]

      Mrs. Liddell
      The implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC) is devolved to the Scottish Executive. The Directive was implemented in Scotland by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Scotland) 2000, which the 444W
      Executive proposes to amend to defer until 2007 the date when existing shipyards are required to apply for permits to carry out organotin coating activities.

      Union of the Crowns
      Mr. Peter Duncan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of her Department's budget has been allocated to provide for celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns. [82433]

      Mrs. Liddell
      None.

      Mr. Peter Duncan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has had from the Scottish Executive regarding plans to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns; and when she received them. [82434]

      Mrs. Liddell
      The First Minister wrote to me on 7 November with proposals to commemorate this and other important dates in Scottish history as a means of promoting tourism. A steering group is being established on which my Department will be represented.

      Mr. Peter Duncan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Union of the Crowns. [82435]

      Mrs. Liddell
      My Department will be part of the Steering Group which will consider what might be done to commemorate this date.

    SOLICITOR-GENERAL

      Victims of Crime
      Keith Vaz
      To ask the Solicitor-General, when she next plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss communications with the victims of crime [82006]

      The Solicitor-General
      I meet with the Director of Public Prosecutions on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues including victims of crime.

      The CPS has recently completed national implementation of the Direct Communication with Victims initiative which involves the lawyer explaining to the victim the decision to drop or alter a charge.

      Public Interest Cases
      Dr. Julian Lewis
      To ask the Solicitor-General, what her practice is in relation to consulting the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of decisions which are likely to be of substantial public interest. [82007]

      The Solicitor-General
      In the relatively few cases where the Attorney General's consent is required for a prosecution it is usual for the prosecuting authority to give us its views when asking for consent.

      Apart from such cases, decisions are for the prosecuting authority. The Director of Public prosecutions and other heads of prosecution agencies occasionally consult the Law Officers before taking decisions, particularly where these are likely to be of substantial public interest.
      445W

      Deceased Victims
      40. Andrew George
      To ask the Solicitor-General what policy is applied by the Crown Prosecution Servcie in respect of the protection of the reputation of deceased victims. [82009]

      The Solicitor-General
      If the reputation of a victim is impugned during the course of a trial, unless the assertion is relevant to an issue in the case the prosecutor will object to the line of questioning. If the assertion is relevant to the facts of the case and the prosecutor believes it may be untrue, he or she should consider seeking and calling evidence in rebuttal. In appropriate cases the prosecutor will seek the court's leave to cross-examine the defendant as to his or her own bad character.

      Crown Prosecution Service
      Simon Hughes
      To ask the Solicitor-General, what is the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the prosecution of incitement to racial hatred. [82010]

      The Solicitor-General
      The Crown Prosecution Service reviews all allegations of inciting racial hatred in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

      Before any prosecution can be brought there are two tests that must be satisfied, firstly, there must be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction, and secondly the prosecution must be in the public interest.

      The Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically states that "a prosecution is likely to be needed if the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin.

      Car Parking
      Mr. Christopher Chope
      To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [81850]

      The Solicitor-General
      [holding answer 19 November 2002]In relation to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, no car parking spaces are available for employees or visitors. Parking for the Ministerial cars of the Attorney General and myself are arranged off-site by the Government car agency.

      The Treasury Solicitor's Department has no parking spaces available for employees or visitors.

      The Crown Prosecution Service has a total for 32 car parking spaces spread over two offices within the central London road user charging zone. Generally these are available to staff or visitors on a "by need" basis in connection with the Department's business.

      The Serious Fraud Office has a total of 25 spaces, of which 10 spaces are allocated to staff with domestic or medical needs. The remaining 15 are available for booking to visitors, staff (not in the category mentioned previously) and for other operational reasons.
      446W
      HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has no car parking spaces within the central London road user charging zone for either employees or visitors.

      Congestion Charging
      Mr. Chope
      To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [81888]

      The Solicitor-General
      [holding answer 19 November 2002]In relation to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the cost of the charge on the two ministerial cars used by the Attorney-General and myself will be borne in the first instance by the Government Car Agency. No figures are currently available to me for the cost, if any, that will be passed to the Department. No employees of the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers travel by car to work. Should the use of a private car be essential or cost effective for any special reason, the Department would bear the cost of the charge. It is not expected that any such occasion should arise.

      The policy of the Treasury Solicitor's Department is to encourage its employees not to use private vehicles on official business and to encourage them to use public transport. The Department will, however, pay road tolls, including the Central London Road User Charge, where use of a private vehicle is essential or where the journey remains cost effective in comparison to the use of public transport.

      The Crown Prosecution Service has no figures to show the estimated cost of the Central London Road User Charge for either of the specified periods.

      The estimates of the likely additional costs to the Serious Fraud Office as a result of the introduction of the Central London Road User Charge are in relation to (a) £1,000 and (b) £10,000.

      In respect of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, use of private cars is rare. It is estimated that the cost of the Central London Road User Charge is unlikely to exceed for the relevant periods (a) £20 and (b) £100.

      Royal Family
      Dr. Evan Harris
      To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance she has issued to the CPS on approaching members of the Royal Family for statements when they may be material witnesses in a prosecution. [82008]

      The Solicitor-General
      I have not issued guidance to the CPS. The CPS is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases and will provide advice to the police in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors taking into account any new evidence or relevant information as a case progresses. However, as the police are responsible for investigating allegations of criminal offences and obtaining evidence, the police rather than the CPS would obtain any witness statements.
      447W

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY

      National Minimum Wage
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the Greater London area have received the recent increase in the national minimum wage. [82369]

      Alan Johnson
      Using the data on low pay collected by the Office for National Statistics in spring 2002, the DTI estimates that around 40,000 people in the London area stood to benefit from the October 2002 increase in the national minimum wage.

      Electricity Generation
      Mr. Bill O'Brien
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost per kilowatt hour is of electricity generated by(a) existing coal fired stations, (b) existing gas stations, (c) new gas stations, (d) AGR, (e) Magnox, (f) onshore wind and (g) offshore wind. [82901]

      Mr. Wilson
      The costs of generating electricity are a commercial matter for generators.

      Costs can be estimated on a variety of bases and will vary from plant to plant. For example, figures can include all cost items, including depreciation and return on capital, or can refer only to the additional costs associated with continued operation. The costs of plant using fossil fuel will vary as fuel prices change.

      Estimate of the cost of generating electricity from new and existing coal- and gas-fired power stations were published in chapter 5 of the 1998 White Paper, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation" (http://www dti.gov.uk/energy/publications/whitepapers/review sources/chpt05.pdf).

      Projections of future generation costs using different technologies (including renewables) are available in:
      (i) chapter 6 of the Performance and Innovation Unit's "Energy Review" (http://www.piu.gov.Uk/2002/energy/report/9.html), which was published in February 2002; and
      (ii) chapter 6 of the Inter-departmental Analysts' Group report, "Long-Term Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK" (http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/cost.pdf), which was published in February 2002.

      Information on the cost of British Energy's UK nuclear stations (which include one Pressurised Water Reactor as well as the AGRs) can be found in the company's report and accounts: (http://www.british-energy.com/investors/reports/index.html

      Information on electricity generation and the cost of operating the Magnox stations is contained in the report and accounts of Magnox Electric plc. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in Libraries of the House.

      Renewable Energy
      Mr. Stunell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government financial support has been given to the renewable energy sector in each year since 1990, broken down by(a) research grants, (b) renewables obligation, (c) non-fossil fuel levy and (d) other sources. [82795]
      448W
      Mr. Wilson
      [holding answer 27 November 2002]Financial support to the renewable energy sector through research grants and other sources and through the non-fossil fuel levy for each year since 1990 is set out in the table.

      The renewables obligation, which took effect from 1 April 2002, does not involve direct Government funding as it is a market-led measure. In this, the first year of the obligation, suppliers are expected to provide 3 per cent, of the electricity supplies from eligible renewable resources. They may meet their obligation through providing a proportion of their supplies from renewables, through buying renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) in the market or through paying the buy-out fee.

      Electricity from renewable sources now also benefits from exemption from the climate change levy (which was introduced in April 2001). In addition, the Government have made provision of £250 million over three years for capital grants for renewable energy.

      £million

      Renewable energy funding1

      Fossil fuel levy

      1990–91

      15.2

      6.1

      1991–92

      18.0

      11.7

      1992–93

      18.7

      28.9

      1993–94

      17.9

      68.1

      1994–95

      12.1

      96.4

      1995–96

      12.3

      94.52

      1996–97

      9.3

      111.93

      1997–98

      6.8

      120.7

      1998–99

      5.9

      120.34

      1999–2000

      7.9

      49.65

      2000–01

      9.7

      62.0

      2001–02

      13.6

      85.5

      1 This column sets out payments from the DTI's new and renewable energy R&D programme. In addition, some relevant projects will have been funded by research councils.

      2 The reduction in levy funding compared to the previous year was primarily due to a fall in generated output for hydro (46 per cent, reduction) and wind (20 per cent, reduction) caused by mild weather and drought conditions during 1995–96.

      3 Figures from 1996–97 on include payments from the fossil fuel levy (Scotland) which commenced in that year.

      4 The reduction was due to the effect of termination of NFFO 1 and 2 contracts on 31 December 1998.

      5 The significant reduction was due to the full-year impact of the termination of NFFO 1 and 2 contracts.

      Diamonds
      Dr. Jenny Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) the World Diamond Council and (b) representatives from the UK jewellers industries regarding promoting the Kimberley Process. [83773]

      Mr. Rammell
      I have been asked to reply.

      In November 2001, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Europe (Mr Peter Hain) met with Gary Ralfe, Managing Director of the De Beers Group, part of the World Diamond Council, to discuss the Kimberley Process.
      449W
      FCO officials have had regular contact with the World Diamond Council for the past two years and are in close touch with the British Jewellers Association.

      In preparation for implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme in January 2003, further discussions with the UK diamond industry, including the Jewellers Association, are due to take place at the FCO on 6 December.

      Manufacturing
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the level of(a) manufacturing

      Table: Manufacturing Gross Value Added 1 by English regions, Wales, scotland and Northern Ireland 1995–99 (million)

      Year

      1995

      1996

      1997

      1998

      1999

      United Kingdom2

      139,789

      146,079

      152,299

      153,408

      152,402

      North East

      6,919

      7,330

      7,348

      7,344

      6,654

      North West

      16,407

      16,919

      17,442

      17,828

      17,577

      Yorkshire and the Humber

      13,162

      13,953

      14,590

      13,934

      13,567

      East Midlands

      10,320

      11,036

      11,790

      11,862

      11,671

      West Midlands

      22,501

      22,674

      24,565

      23,877

      23,415

      East

      11,452

      12,168

      12,880

      12,910

      12,584

      South East

      16,004

      16,665

      17,800

      18,642

      19,229

      London

      12,764

      13,650

      13,781

      14,382

      14,567

      South West

      8,965

      9,359

      9,806

      9,894

      10,482

      Wales

      8,831

      9,311

      9,200

      9,323

      8,832

      Scotland

      9,732

      10,024

      10,002

      10,283

      10,555

      Northern Ireland

      2,730

      2,990

      3,102

      3,124

      3,264

      Notes:

      1 Estimates of regional gross value added in this table are on a residence basis, where the income of commuters is allocated to where they live, rather than their place of work.

      2 Excluding 'Extra-Regio' which consists of gross value added which cannot be assigned to regions.

      Source:

      Office for National Statistics 'regional gross value added' 21 November 2002.

      Table: Employee jobs in manufacturing by English Regions, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland 1997—2001 (December)

      Year

      1997

      1998

      1999

      2000

      2001

      United Kingdom

      4,176,000

      4,147,000

      4,019,000

      3,904,000

      3,745,000

      North East

      191,000

      187,000

      173,000

      176,000

      169,000

      North West

      532,000

      530,000

      514,000

      499,000

      474,000

      Yorkshire and the Humber

      425,000

      410,000

      394,000

      384,000

      368,000

      East Midlands

      424,000

      423,000

      399,000

      383,000

      365,000

      West Midlands

      561,000

      553,000

      533,000

      495,000

      478,000

      East

      356,000

      353,000

      328,000

      334,000

      327,000

      South East

      440,000

      442,000

      444,000

      437,000

      427,000

      London

      285,000

      287,000

      296,000

      287,000

      277,000

      South West

      318,000

      321,000

      314,000

      302,000

      291,000

      Wales

      215,000

      208,000

      207,000

      201,000

      193,000

      Scotland

      320,000

      327,000

      315,000

      302,000

      280,000

      Northern Ireland

      108,000

      107,000

      101,000

      104,000

      99,000

      Source:

      1997–2000 DTI analyses of employment statistics from Annual Business Inquiry (GB) and Short Term Employment Survey (Northern Ireland) taken from NOMIS (ONS' labour market database). 2001 from 'Labour Market Trends' (ONS), Table B16, November 2002.

      Post Office
      Mr. Coleman
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Post Office has to close(a) main post offices and (b) sub post offices in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; and if she will make a statement. [84040]

      Mr. Timms
      The programme to restructure the urban post office network has only just started and is being taken forward in consultation with individual sub-postmasters, the community, Members of Parliament, other local stakeholders and Postwatch in accordance with the Code of Practice. There is no pre-determined 450W
      output and (b) employment in the manufacturing sector in each of the last five years were in each region of the UK; [83922]

      (2) if she will make a statement on changes in the size of the manufacturing sector in the UK in the last five years; [83919]

      (3) what the level of (a) manufacturing output and (b) employment in the manufacturing sector in the North West were for each of the last five years. [83921]

      Alan Johnson
      The available information is given in the following tables

      closure list. Under the code, Post Office Ltd. is required to consult Postwatch and other interested parties on its specific proposals for change.

      The objective of the urban network restructuring programme is to ensure that ad hoc closures which would leave gaps in the network are prevented. It is envisaged that the restructured urban network will provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community.

      Angus Robertson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received from the Post Office regarding the relocation of the main Elgin Post Office in the
      451W
      constituency of Moray; if she will seek clarification on the future location of this post office; and if she will make a statement. [84003]

      Mr. Timms
      The Department has received no representations about the relocation of the main Elgin Post Office. Decisions on the location or relocation of individual post offices are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. Any proposal to relocate a post office is subject to consultation with the local community under the Code of Practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch.

      Steel Production
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the required(a) capacity and (b) capability of steel production in the UK is in order to meet UK manufacturing needs. [83920]

      Alan Johnson
      The UK steel industry makes a wide, and increasingly sophisticated, range of products to meet the needs of the manufacturing industry in the home market and overseas. In 2001, UK production of primary steel products was 13.5 million tonnes, while capacity stood at 18.9 million tonnes at the end of that year. In the same year, UK demand for primary steel products was 13.7 million tonnes.

      Multinational Companies
      Norman Lamb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take steps as recommended by paragraphs 177 and 178 of the UN Expert Panel report to ensure compliance by UK-based companies and individuals with OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises. [81317]

      Ms Hewitt
      The proposal that countries, which are signatories to the OECD Guidelines, ensure their companies adhere to and act on the Guidelines, is one of a wide range of recommendations made by the UN Expert Panel report being considered by the Government. In consultations at the UN on 13 November 2002, a number of states asked for more information to be made available to substantiate the report's allegations. The UK has also asked the UN directly for more information, but has not yet received a response.

      Norman Lamb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of whether UK-based companies have breached OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises in respect of activities in the DRC, as set out in the UN Expert Panel report. [81318]

      Ms Hewitt
      The claim that a number of UK companies are in breach of the OECD Guidelines in respect of their activities in the DRC is one of a number of violations alleged by the UN Expert Panel report, which is being considered by the Government. In consultations at the UN on 13 November 2002, a number of states asked for more information to be made available to substantiate the report's allegations. The UK has also asked the UN directly for more information, but has not yet received a response.
      452W

    TRANSPORT

      Public Highways
      Bob Russell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those categories of public bodies which can apply for the permanent closure of areas of the public highway to prevent use by motorised vehicles; [82465]

      (2) in what circumstances individuals or organisations, other than public bodies, may apply for the permanent closure of areas of the public highway to prevent use by motorised vehicles; and in what circumstances this would be allowed. [82464]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 25 November 2002]Use of a public highway by vehicles may be prohibited or restricted by means of traffic regulation orders (TRO) made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, while the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Highways Act 1980 include provisions for stopping up highways completely.

      Responsibility for making TROs rests with the local traffic authority. It is open to anyone to make representations about the need to control vehicular traffic, but it is for the traffic authority concerned to decide whether the making of a TRO is appropriate. For local roads the making of a TRO is subject to the procedures set out in The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 SI 1996/2489 and for trunk roads The Secretary of State's Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/1656. These regulations require prior notice of the proposed making of an order and allow for objections to be made which the traffic authority must consider in deciding whether to make the order.

      Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides for the stopping up or diversion of highways in connection with development by means of an order made by the Secretary of State on the application of a developer who has been granted planning permission or by a government department. A section 247 order removes all highway rights. Applications must be made to the relevant Government Office. Section 249 of the Act enables the extinguishment of the right to use vehicles on a highway where a local planning authority has resolved to adopt such a proposal in the interest of improving the amenity of part of their area. Section 252 of the Act sets out the procedure for making orders under sections 247 and 249. Proposed orders must be advertised to allow for objections to be made and a public inquiry to be held if necessary.

      Under the provisions of section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 a magistrates court may make an order authorising the stopping up or diversion of a public highway on the grounds that it is unnecessary or can be diverted so as to make it nearer or more commodious to the public. Such an order removes all highway rights. An application for an

      453W
      order. Persons aggrieved by the proposal to stop up or divert a highway under section 116 have a right to be heard by the court.

      A180
      Shona Mclsaac
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when resurfacing of the A180 with low noise materials will commence. [82919]

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

      Letter from Tim Matthews to Shona McIsaacs dated 28 November 2002:
      I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when resurfacing of the A180 with low noise materials will commence
      The criteria for deciding the priority for applying quieter surfacing to concrete roads were announced in October 2001. These criteria are:
      that wherever possible the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs;
      that priority will be given to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people;
      that the works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to general public and users of the network;
      that priority will be given to roads, opened since June 1998, where actual noise levels turned out significantly higher than predicted at the time of Public Inquiry
      Resurfacing of two concrete sections of the A180, between Harborough and Stallingborough and between Great Coates and Pyewipe, is due to be undertaken by 2001 under the Ten Year Plan. Originally, both schemes were included in the list of roads to be resurfaced by 2005, based on an assessment that maintenance would need to be carried out by that date. However, current indications are that maintenance work will not be needed between Great Coates and Pyewipe before 2005 and it is probable that this work will be undertaken later
      I am afraid that it is not possible to provide a better idea of timing until the review of the maintenance programme is complete following the 2002 spending settlement. We will write to you again once the results of that review are known
      If you require any further information, please contact Mick Spink, the Highways Agency's Area Manager for the a 180. He can be contacted on 1003 283 5397 or e-mail mick.spink@highways.gsi.gov.uk. Or for further information on resurfacing of concrete roads, visit our website at www.highways.gov.uk and use our search facility to find 'concrete roads'.

      A316, Twickenham
      Dr. Cable
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speeding tickets have been(a) issued and (b) withdrawn from each of the speed cameras on the A316 within the constituency of Twickenham; and if he will make a statement. [83659]

      Mr. Bob Ainsworth
      I have been asked to reply.

      This information is not collected centrally.

      A428, Bedfordshire
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the repair bill for the cracked whisper road surface of the A428 in Bedfordshire which was laid when owned by the Highways Agency will be met by Central Government. [83142]
      454W
      Mr. Jamieson
      The A428 in Bedfordshire was detrunked on 1 September 2001. At that time no specific road maintenance work (other than routine) had been identified by the Highways Agency in their forward programme and this was agreed with Bedfordshire County Council.

      Funds have been provided for minor maintenance and routine works for the remainder of 2001–02 and for routine works in 2002–03. There have been no requests from Bedfordshire County Council for additional funding. Any maintenance or improvement works that have been identified by the Council since they became the Highway Authority for the A428 should be included in their annual Local Transport Plan updates.

      Turvey High Street (Pedestrian Crossing)
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the repair bill for the eroded high friction dressing laid for the Highways Agency at the Turvey High Street pedestrian crossing in Bedfordshire will be met by Central Government. [83141]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The A428 in Bedfordshire was detrunked on 1 September 2001. At that time no specific road maintenance work (other than routine) had been identified by the Highways Agency in their forward programme and this was agreed with Bedfordshire County Council. Funds have been provided for minor maintenance and routine works for the remainder of 2001/02 and for routine works in 2002/03. There have been no requests from Bedfordshire County Council for additional funding. Any maintenance or improvement works that have been identified by the Council since they became the Highway Authority for the A428 should be included in their annual Local Transport Plan updates.

      Airport (Hullavington)
      Mr. Gray
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he wrote to local authorities in Wiltshire formally as part of the consultation exercise, inviting them to submit representations in respect of the proposal to locate an airport at Hullavington; and if he will list the authorities concerned; [84073]

      (2) if he will rank in order of closeness by proximity of each district local authority area within a 20 mile radius of the prospective airport at Hullavington; [84072]

      (3) what reason he has not held public (a) meetings and (b) exhibitions in North Wiltshire as part of the public consultation on locating an airport at Hullavington; [84071]

      (4) in which local authority areas his Department has initiated (a) public meetings, and (b) exhibitions as part of the public consultation in respect of locating an airport at Hullavington. [84070]

      Mr. Jamieson
      As I explained to the hon. Member in my answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 75W, the consultation on 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East', does not include any option for airport development at Hullavington.
      455W

      Airport Capacity
      Mr. Stringer
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which RDAs have contributed to investment in airport terminal capacity; and how much was invested at each airport. [82546]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 25 November 2002]I have been asked to reply.

      This information is not held centrally. Investment decisions are a matter for individual RDAs. We understand that some RDAs at least are supportive of airports' plans to expand terminal capacity and would consider investing in such projects, subject to EC state aid rules.

      Cardiff and Bristol Airports
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action will be taken to open up routes to(a) Cardiff and (b) Bristol airports. [83387]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The Government encourages the use of regional airports. Community airlines are free to fly where they wish within the European Economic Area (EEA) under the "third package" of aviation liberalisation. In addition, since 1997 we have pursued a policy of offering foreign airlines from outside the EEA unrestricted frequencies to regional points in the UK on a reciprocal basis. It remains a commercial decision for airlines as to the services and frequencies that they offer.

      Channel Tunnel Links
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received for direct links to the Channel Tunnel from the north-west for(a) passenger trains and (b) freight trains. [84058]

      Mr. Jamieson
      My Department receives representations from time to time about the development of passenger rail links to the Channel Tunnel. We are also considering proposals by Central Railway to construct and operate a dedicated freight link between Liverpool and northern France. We have received the Strategic Rail Authority's advice on this proposal and will respond to Central Railway in due course.

      Cycling Helmets
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently assessed the change in the rates of injury from accidents for children cycling as a result of wearing helmets. [83897]

      Mr. Spellar
      This information is not available centrally. However, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust has been running a cycle helmet promotion scheme in Reading since 1992. During that time, cycle helmet use by children has trebled and there has been a 45 per cent, reduction in the number of hospital treated head injuries. A recent study commissioned by the Department on the effectiveness of cycle helmets found that overall, evidence suggests that cycle helmets are effective at reducing the severity of head, brain and upper facial injuries for all ages, especially children. This report will be published shortly.
      456W

      Jet Skis
      Tim Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities there have been in UK waters in each of the last two years involving jet skis. [83318]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 25 November 2002]HM Coastguard incident reports record a total of 494 incidents involving Personal Watercraft between January 2000 and 22 November 2002 around the UK coastline. One fatality was recorded. A breakdown by year is provided in the following table.

      Year

      Number of incidents

      Number of fatalities

      2000

      150

      0

      2001

      179

      0

      20021

      165

      1

      1 To 22 November 2002

      Oil Tankers
      Mr. Derek Wyatt
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on banning single hull ships in EU waters. [82531]

      Mr. Jamieson
      [holding answer 25 November 2002]The UK consistently supported measures to accelerate the withdrawal of single hull tankers which were introduced following the loss of the tanker ERIKA in December 1999. Jointly, with Denmark and the Netherlands, we took the lead in securing mandatory change in the International Maritime Organization's (MO) MARPOL Convention on an international timetable. The UK preferred a global programme to a regional arrangement, since coastlines outside the EU are equally deserving of protection, and also supported the consequential EU Regulation EC 417/2002, which imposed the IMO text in EU member states.

      Peter Bottomley
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will propose international initiatives to bring forward the end of the use of large single-hulled oil tankers; [83027]

      (2) if he will bring forward the date when single-hulled large oil tankers are to be banned from UK waters; and if he will make a statement. [83026]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The recent amendment to the MARPOL Convention agreed in the International Maritime Organization, and implemented within the EU by Regulation No. 417/2002, requires that single-hull tankers having no additional protection, such as the PRESTIGE, must be phased out in order of age between 2003 and 2007. Single-hull tankers fitted with partial protection must be phased out in order of age between 2003 and 2015. It will be necessary for each category of single-hull tanker to satisfy an additional requirement for a rigorous condition assessment survey to be able to operate after 2005 and 2010 respectively. Investment in the newer double-hull tankers depends on the stability offered by this timetable.

      Performance-related Pay
      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which employees of(a) his Department, (b)

      457W
      the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) the Civil Aviation Authority are paid performance-related pay; and if he will make a statement on the nature and success of such schemes. [81740]

      Mr. Spellar
      All members of staff in my Department are eligible for performance pay which forms an integral part of my Department's pay systems. In addition, staff below the senior civil service may also receive special performance bonus awards to reward exceptional performance over a limited period in particularly demanding tasks or situations. Annual awards are subject to individual assessment against the level of achievement of pre-determined performance targets. Staff who are on fixed-term contracts are eligible to performance-related bonuses subject to the terms of their contract.

      All Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) employees who are on standard SRA terms and conditions are eligible for performance-related pay.

      All employees of the Civil Aviation Authority have access to performance related bonuses, but this is an internal matter for the CAA.

      Rail Franchises
      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which rail franchises are operated as a management contract; when each of these contracts began; why each was let as this type of contract in the first instance; and what changes to these franchises are planned. [81730]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The passenger rail franchises currently being operated as management contracts are set out in the table.

      Franchise

      Start of management contract

      Current franchise expiry date

      Anglia

      March 2002

      April 2004

      Arriva Trains Merseyside

      February 2001

      February 2003

      Arriva Trains Northern

      February 2001

      February 2003

      First North Western

      March 2001

      April 2004

      Wales and Borders

      October 2001

      April 2004

      Wessex

      October 2001

      April 2004

      None of these franchises was initially let as a management contract. Current arrangements have been negotiated by the SRA as interim measures to ensure the continued viability of services or to facilitate changes to the franchise map.

      Road Closures (Greater London)
      Mr. Redwood
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much trunk road and motorway lane mileage has been closed to cars in the Greater London area in the past 12 months. [82657]

      Mr. Spellar
      Since re-classification to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), there are no trunk roads in the Greater London area. There have been a total of 87 miles of motorway lanes, for which the Highways Agency is responsible, temporarily closed to cars in the past 12 months and no permanent closures. These closures included overnight routine maintenance 458W
      work, off-peak daytime works and emergency closures to deal with incidents and carriageway/safety barrier repairs.

      Road works
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trunk road excavations there have been in each constituency in each year since 1997; and what the cost was. [83184]

      Mr. Jamieson
      I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Mathews, to write to my hon. Friend.

      Letter from Tim Mathews to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 28 November 2002:
      I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent parliamentary question about, how many trunk road excavations there have been in each constituency in each year since 1997, and what the cost was
      Unfortunately, I cannot provide this information. The Highways Agency does not currently collect this data and it could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. However should you be seeking specific information we may be able to provide it.

      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on imposing time limits on companies engaged in construction work on existing trunk roads. [83185]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The Highways Agency uses a variety of different forms of contract to carry out maintenance and improvement construction work on the trunk road network in England. They all incorporate a time limit to undertake the work and have contractual mechanisms to help achieve compliance with the contract duration. In addition, the Highways Agency monitors the performance of its suppliers in this respect and takes this into account in determining future opportunities.

      Ticketing
      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted by or for his Department on profiling users of the traveline(a) phone and (b) website services. [83524]

      Mr. Jamieson
      No research is currently available regarding the profiles of traveline users for either the telephone or for the website. However, the Department for Transport is currently funding a research project on behalf of the traveline partners that is partly looking at existing traveline telephone customers to find out who they are, why they are calling, what information they are requesting and what they are supplied with. The results will be available in April 2003.

      The research will not look at profiles of those using the website.

      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by(a) his Department and (b) other bodies on (i) branding and (ii) advertising the traveline (A) brand, (B) phone service and (c) website in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [83525]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The Department for Transport spent £36,319 on traveline branding in 2000–01. It spent £1.025 million on an advertising campaign for the traveline phone service in 2001–02.
      459W
      Advertising by traveline partners has included adding the traveline logo to paper timetables, on bus stop posters, to publications for example in Yellow Pages and on the backs of bus tickets. All traveline partners have been asked to include traveline branding in their publications and this is now widespread among bus operators and local authorities.

      The Department has spent no monies on branding the website but has followed the traveline logo branding guidelines in devising the design of the web page. The Department has not advertised the traveline web address but this is being considered in future promotions.

      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many tickets have been sold through the traveline service in each year that it has been in operation(a) by telephone and (b) via the internet, broken down by mode of travel; and what the total value was of tickets sold in each case. [83575]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Traveline does not sell tickets for any mode of transport by either telephone or via the internet.

      Mr. Don Foster
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) web page impressions and (b) unique website visitors have been registered by the Traveline website in each year that it has been in operation. [83576]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The traveline website is not directly managed by the Department for Transport, but by the relevant traveline partners who provide information about usage of the site to the Department.

      The website was launched in 2001 with links initially to local journey planners, however, several new regional journey planners have recently been launched and these are now linked to the traveline portal site.

      As the traveline site is a portal or gateway to other websites, we are not aware of the number of web pages, however traveline partners are estimating the number of individual user sessions that take place each week. This has grown steadily over the year from nothing to about 3,000 individual user inquiry sessions per week. Continued growth in usage is expected over the coming months as further regional traveline journey planners are launched and linked to the portal, and as advertising of the traveline web address starts to appear.

      West Coast Main Line
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the upgrade of the West Coast main line. [84056]

      Mr. Jamieson
      A draft strategy for upgrading the West Coast Main Line was published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 9 October 2002. Comments have been invited by 16 December 2002.
      460W

    TREASURY

      Overseas Aid
      Mr. Walter
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the UK Overseas Aid Development budget to reach the UN target level of 0.7 per cent, of gross national income. [83401]

      John Healey
      I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 7 November,Official Report, column 738W.

      Any timetable beyond 2005–06 for reaching the UN 0.7 per cent, target would properly be a matter for future parliaments. For this reason we believe that it is more important to look at what has actually been achieved and what is firmly budgeted for, and it is this record— rather than any aspirational timetable— that should be seen as the critical test of our commitment.

      Capital Gains
      Mr. Cousins
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what review he is undertaking of the capital gains tax consequences of different dividend reinvestment practices in unit trusts and OEICS. [83425]

      Ruth Kelly
      The taxation of dividend reinvestment in United Kingdom authorised unit trusts and open-ended investment companies is long established and well understood. Tax is payable on the distribution in the same way that it would be, were the dividend actually paid out. This means that for individuals, because of the tax credit rules, only higher-rate taxpayers have any additional tax to pay.

      There is no capital gains tax, or corporation tax on chargeable gains, payable until investors dispose of their units or shares. And then investors can normally treat the reinvested dividends as part of their allowable expenditure in calculating the capital gains.

      The Chancellor has asked the Inland Revenue to review the taxation of investment in similar overseas collective investment schemes. He emphasised in the Pre Budget Report that the Government are committed to continuing constructive dialogue with fund managers and other stakeholders on the implementation of a new regime. In taking that work forward, the Government will listen carefully to all views. A key objective is to ensure that the competitiveness of the UK fund management industry is preserved without distorting the market for savings and investment products as a whole.

      Census Data
      Mr. Battle
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the detailed census data and analysis will be available. [83484]

      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. John Battle, dated 28 November 2002:
      As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking when the detailed census data and analysis will be publicly available. (83484)

      461W
      The first detailed results— the Key Statistics for Local Authorities— are planned to be released in a report to Parliament on 13 February 2003. The report will present a selection of summary statistics covering the whole range of census topics. The information will also be available from the ONS website
      Further output, presenting more detailed results including those for smaller areas will follow in a series of reports and other products over a subsequent period of 32 weeks. Reports to Parliament for England and Wales will give results for local authorities, health authorities, Parliamentary Constituencies, urban and rural areas, and regions, with additional bi-lingual reports for Wales. These will present results in a succinct printed form, also available and supplemented by more detailed results on CD ROMs included with some printed volumes, with software for viewing and manipulation. Electronic versions will also be placed on the ONS Website—www.statistics.gov.uk and will accessible to all without charge.
      Results for small areas which will comprise the bulk of output, will be in the form of standard local statistics issued as an integrated set of statistics, geography and metadata free at the point of use, and again via the ONS website and other means.

      Child Tax Credit
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding changes that may be necessary to the child tax credit claim form. [83951]

      Dawn Primarolo
      The new tax credits claim form has been developed in consultation with a wide range of organisations and has been through extensive usability testing. The Inland Revenue continue to consult widely on a range of tax credits issues, including information materials.

      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which body will be responsible for dealing with(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit appea. [83952]

      Dawn Primarolo
      Tax credits form part of the tax system and appeals will therefore be heard in the same way as tax appeals. However, tax credit claimants form a new client group for the tax appeals system. Consequently, appeals by claimants will continue to be heard by the Appeals Service for a transitional period, while the necessary changes are made to allow them to be dealt with effectively under the tax appeals system.

      Customs and Excise Seizures
      Norman Baker
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many seizures were made of(a) species and (b) other material listed under the CITES regime the last year for which figures are available; how many prosecutions were pursued; and what the outcomes were of those prosecutions. [80870]

      John Healey
      [holding answer 20 November 2002]In the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 Customs made 337 seizures of imports or exports subject to EU legislation on endangered species. The goods seized were:

      Live Animals—6,345

      Plants—8,734

      Parts or derivatives—1,927,622

      Items recorded by weight—1,042,872 grams

      462W
      In the same period Customs prosecuted six persons for endangered species related offences of which five were convicted.

      Sue Doughty
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place to ensure that cars seized by Customs and Excise have documentation to enable the return of such cars to their owners. [83447]

      John Healey
      Vehicles used to smuggle goods into the UK or used to transport such goods within the UK are liable to seizure. In certain circumstances Customs will offer to restore the vehicle for a fee. Normally such a restoration offer is made on-the-spot immediately after seizure and vehicle registration documents are not transferred. Vehicles seized that have been used in large scale or repeated smuggling attempts are not normally offered for restoration. Customs always seek to notify the owner of a seized vehicle of that seizure where they are not present at the time of seizure.

      Sue Doughty
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid to owners of cars seized by Customs and Excise when the decision has been overturned on appeal. [83448]

      John Healey
      Customs have had the powers to seize means of transport used in smuggling attempts since the 19th century. Customs do not hold central records on the amount of compensation paid to owners of cars seized by Customs when the decision has been overturned on appeal.

      In the last two years 1,586 seizure cases have been appealed to magistrates courts of which less than 1 per cent, were overturned.

      Sue Doughty
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars seized by Customs and Excise in the last year were disposed of before an appeal to a tribunal. [83449]

      John Healey
      Customs' policy is not to dispose of seized vehicles until any appeal against seizure to a magistrates court has been heard. The time limits for such an appeal are specified in law. Once the time period for such an appeal has elapsed or the magistrates have rejected the appeal, it is Customs' policy to dispose of the vehicle as efficiently as possible.

      An appeal to a tribunal may be made when Customs decide not to offer restoration. There is no time limit for restoration requests to be made and tribunals often take place many months or even years after the seizure. In the past two financial years,75 per cent, of vehicle seizures have not been appealed. Where a request has been made for restoration of the vehicle, Customs' decision has been upheld in 97 per cent, of the cases. Customs do not hold central records of the number of seized cars that were disposed of before an appeal to a tribunal.

      Debt Relief
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the hold in trust policy for those countries yet to secure debt relief due to civil wars. [83193]

      John Healey
      The latest data show that the UK has been holding in trust a total of 1,057,200 for six countries still to secure debt relief because of civil wars,
      463W
      external conflict or the absence of a poverty reduction programme. We continue to use international and bilateral meetings to urge other creditors to follow our lead on this policy.

      Insolvency Service
      Mr. Reed
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he received the new pay and grading system for the Insolvency Service Submission; and when he will make an announcement. [83336]

      Mr. Boateng
      The Insolvency Service have been discussing the details of their proposals with us for some time. We would hope to be able to conclude the process shortly.

      Landfill Tax (Moray)
      Angus Robertson
      To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a temporary suspension of the landfill tax for the flood victims of Moray. [83589]

      John Healey
      The Government has no plans at present to introduce a temporary suspension of landfill tax.

      Mortgages
      Mr. Gordon Prentice
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) building societies, (b) banks and (c) other banking institutions offer mortgages without checking independently the salary of applicants for mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [83906]

      Ruth Kelly
      Information concerning lending decisions by mortgage lenders is not available to the Government, as these are purely commercial decisions. However, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) will be regulating mortgage business with effect from October 2004. As part of this process, the FSA has been consulting on rules in respect of responsible lending. In future, lenders will need to be able to show that account is taken of the consumer's ability to pay before entering into a mortgage contract.

      Overseas Development Assistance
      Mr. Caton
      To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he estimates that the UK will achieve the UN target for overseas development assistance as a proportion of national income by 2015; [83363]

      (2) what assessment his Department has made of when the UK will reach the UN target for overseas development assistance as a proportion of the gross national income. [83365]

      John Healey
      The Government remains fully committed to reaching the UN 0.7 per cent. ODA7GNI target. In the 2002 Spending Review the Government set out its spending plans for the next three years up to 2005–06 and has made substantial increases to the aid budget. The UK's level of overseas development assistance will reach 0.33 per cent, of GNI by 2003–04 and 0.40 per cent, by 2005–06, up from 0.26 per cent, in 1997. This will place us well above the current G7 country average of 0.19 per cent, and the current OECD average of 0.22 per cent.
      464W
      Any timetable beyond 2005–06 for reaching the UN target would properly be a matter for future parliaments. For this reason we believe that it is important to look at what has actually been achieved and what is firmly budgeted for— rather than any aspirational timetable— as the critical test of our commitment.

    WORK AND PENSIONS

      Pension Credit
      Phil Sawford
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the percentage of pensioners in the Kettering constituency who will benefit from the pension credit to be introduced in October 2003. [80419]

      Mr. McCartney
      Estimates of pension credit entitlement are not available at constituency level due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used.

      As at May 2002, there were 2,700 MIG recipients in the Kettering constituency.

      Carers Benefit
      Mr. Roy
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when new carers over the age of 65 will be eligible to apply for Carers Benefit. [80133]

      Maria Eagle
      As part of the benefit changes which are providing some £500 million over three years in extra help for carers, the upper age limit on claims for Invalid Care Allowance was abolished on 28 October 2002. This change means that new carers aged 65 and over can now claim the benefit. The overlapping benefit rules mean that only those with no, or with a low rate of State Pension, are likely to receive the benefit. However, carers with underlying entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance can gain access to the carer premium in income-related benefits such as the Minimum Income Guarantee, resulting in a significantly higher award of benefit. Invalid Care Allowance is to be renamed "Carer's Allowance" in April 2003.

      Child Benefit
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Department has drafted a letter for Child Benefit claimants regarding the legal obligation to ensure their children attend school; and if he will make a statement. [83950]

      Malcolm Wicks
      The letter to parents notifying them of their rate of Child Benefit from April 2003 will be accompanied in England by a leaflet from the Department for Education and Skills on education matters. The leaflet includes a message on parents' responsibilities in ensuring that their children attend school. The letters will be issued from early December. A copy of the leaflet will be placed in the Library.

      Disability Living Allowance
      Mr. Roy
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of claims for Disability Living Allowance have been(a) refused and (b) granted after a review or appeal since April 2001. [80131]
      465W
      Maria Eagle
      The exact information requested is unavailable. However we do hold some relevant information and this is shown in the tables.

      Number of applicants for Disability Living Allowance rejected on first application over the past two financial years in Great Britain.

      Number of DLA applicants rejected on first application

      2000–01

      206,145

      Number of applicants for Disability Living Allowance that were granted on review in Great Britain May 2001–May 2002

      of which:

      Quarter ending

      All claims where DLA was granted

      Claims granted on first application

      Claims granted on appeal

      Claims granted on review

      May 2001

      66,300

      53,700

      9,100

      3,500

      August 2001

      63,800

      53,100

      7,400

      3,300

      November 2001

      62,900

      51,500

      7,700

      3,600

      February 2002

      59,700

      49,400

      6,300

      4,000

      May 2002

      66,400

      56,100

      7,200

      3,100

      Note:

      Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred. Figures may not sum due to rounding

      Source:

      5 per cent, data taken from the AA/DLA computer system from quarter ending 31 May 2001 to quarter ending 31 May 2002.

      The number of Disability Living Allowance appeals cleared at hearing, with details about those found in favour of the appellant at hearing, decided against the appellant and decision upheld at hearing with percentages from March 2001 to May 2002

      Quarter ending

      Cleared

      Found in favour

      Percentage found in favour

      Decided against

      Percentage decided against

      Decision upheld

      Percentage decision upheld

      May 2001

      22,800

      11,940

      52.4

      15

      0.1

      10,655

      46.7

      August 2001

      20,055

      10,610

      52.9

      25

      0.1

      9,205

      45.9

      November 2001

      19,950

      10,565

      53.0

      50

      0.3

      9,135

      45.8

      February 2002

      17,300

      9,425

      54.5

      10

      0.1

      7,695

      44.5

      May 2002

      19,865

      10,710

      53.9

      15

      0.1

      8,940

      45.0

      Notes

      1 All figures are subject to change as more up to date data become available

      2 Figures are rounded to the nearest five

      3 Percentages are rounded to one decimal place

      4 Discrepancies between cleared and breakdown due to outcomes such as withdrawn or misconceived appeals.

      Source:

      100 per cent, download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

      Disability Premium
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families on Income Support have more than one child which satisfies the criteria for entitlement to the disability premium. [83949]

      Malcolm Wicks
      In Great Britain, as at August 2002, there were 7,600 Income Support claimants with more than one child receiving either the Disabled Child Premium or both the Disabled Child Premium and Enhanced Disabled Child Premium.

      Source:

      Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2002

      Minimum Income Guarantee
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received regarding changes that may be necessary to the minimum income guarantee claim form. [83953]
      466W

      Number of applicants for Disability Living Allowance rejected on first application over the past two financial years in Great Britain

      Number of DLA applicants rejected on first application

      2001–02

      192,315

      Notes:

      1. Information is available only at a national level.

      2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five

      Source:

      ASD Information Centre, data taken from 100 per cent, extract of monthly management information system.

      Mr. McCartney
      Extensive research and consultation were undertaken when developing the new, shorter, minimum income guarantee form (MIG1) however it is, as are all of the Department's forms and leaflets, kept under review.

      We have received a request from Carers UK that the claim form be further amended to reflect that, since 28 October 2002, older carers have been able to claim invalid care allowance. The April 2003 re-print of the MIG1 will reflect this point, in the meantime staff handling MIG claims have been alerted to this change.

      Post Office Card Account
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will announce the alternative arrangements for those people who will not be able to use the PIN number associated with a post office card account. [83208]

      Malcolm Wicks
      [holding answer 25 November 2002]Customers who cannot or do not want to use a card and PIN may want to consider an account with a cheque
      467W
      book or pass book. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options (including the key features of each type of account) and enables them to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances.

      The alternative arrangements are not needed until order books and giros cease in 2005 and we expect them to be in place in autumn 2004. Work is currently under way to achieve this. We will ensure that the method introduced will be secure, efficient and available from outlets including post offices.

      Dr. Cable
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria are used to decide where the pilot scheme for the Post Office Card Account was to be held. [83650]

      Mr. Timms
      I have been asked to reply.

      Implementation of the Card Account, including any piloting arrangements, is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. within the terms of their contract with the spending departments.

      I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd. to write direct to the hon. Member.
      468W

      Voluntary Sector
      Sue Doughty
      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Government plans to reform the rules on availability for work to make it easier for people out of paid employment to take voluntary work; and if he will make a statement. [80407]

      Mr. Nicholas Brown
      We have laid before Parliament draft regulations which will amend the rules on availability for work for jobseeker's allowance recipients. Subject to parliamentary approval, these regulations will extend from 48 hours to one week the period of notice before jobseekers who engage in voluntary work must be available to start employment. In order to ensure that they do not miss out on job opportunities, jobseekers who undertake voluntary work will still be required to be available for an interview at 48 hours' notice.

      This relaxation in the rules should make it easier for people out of paid employment to make a greater commitment to volunteering by allowing them to give a week's notice before having to start a job. It should also make it more worthwhile for voluntary organisations to take on unemployed volunteers and offer them development and training opportunities.

      We propose to introduce the changes nationally for a trial period of a year so that an evaluation can take place.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Young Runaways
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  In March 2001 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to lead a project"to make running away less likely, and to ensure that runaways' long and short-term needs are safely met".

  Today we are publishing the final report on young runaways. It sets out a practical package of measures to ensure that young runaways will get the extra help and support to keep them safe and to address their problems.

  Running away is a huge problem. Each year more than 77,000 young people run away: one in 14 will end up surviving by begging, stealing or getting involved in prostitution and drug-dealing. 20,000 each year are under 11 years old. Running away is a problem in itself but it can also mean that young people are more likely to suffer from social exclusion later in life with a higher risk of homelessness, crime and drug use.

  We are putting the systems in place to make sure no-one falls through the net. This report shows how services must join together to work for the young person at risk. Practical measures will help to prevent young people from running in the first place. If they do run they will have someone to locate and make contact with them, help to negotiate a way home, a safe place to stay and access to longer-term help.

  The report highlights how mainstream services need to work more effectively together to address the factors that can lead to running away and other problems. The Green Paper on Children at Risk announced in this House by the Prime Minister on 30 October will develop radical options for improving services for all children and young people at risk.

  Later today, I will be visiting Step Forward, a Safe in the City project that provides a range of effective services to this vulnerable group, to launch the publication of the runaways report.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Resources (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  187,346

  3,722,729

  1,142,958

  2,579,771

  218,879

  1,040,515

  -15,607

  1,056,122

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain)
  The Wales departmental expenditure limit will be increased by £62,325,000 from £9,283,912,000 to £9,346,237,000. The increase is a result of:

  (i) the take up of end year flexibility of £55,000,000 for the National Assembly for Wales.

  (ii) the take up of end year flexibility of £500,000 for the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of Administration Costs.

  (iii) additional provision of

  £2,356,000 consequential from DEFRA's claim on the reserve for local authority assistance in dealing with waste fridges
  (iv) net transfers from other government departments of £4,469,000.

  These transfers are as follows:
  (i) £1,188,000 from the Home Office for the Partnership Development Fund,
  (ii) £436,000 from the Home Office for cover administration costs of the Crime Reduction Unit
  (iii) £360,000 from the Home Office for Active Community Match Funding— Programme Grant
  (iv) £159,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions for New Deal training inspections
  (v) £1,335,000 from DTI for the Broadband Fund
  (vi) £34,000 from the Home Office for the Golden Jubilee Awards
  (vii) £557,000 from the Department for Education and Skills for Access Bursaries
  (viii) £400,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry for the Manufacturing Advisory Service

  The Wales Office administration costs limit will be increased by £500,000 from £2,330,000 to £2,830,000.

  The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departments, from the reserve or take up of end-year flexibility and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Winter Supplementary Estimates
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the Department of Trade and Industry's DEL will be increased by £406,225,000 from £4,357,019,000 to £4,763,244,000 and the Administration Costs limit will be increased by £17,483,000 from £405,704,000 to £423,187,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:
  41WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from

  RfRl

  (i) utilisation of £5,892,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Small Business Service Invest to Save Local Competitiveness project;

  (ii) utilisation of £11,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for Rover Task Force, of which £520,000 is to be transferred to the Department for Education and Skills for MG Rover training;

  (iii) utilisation of £40,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund in respect of the Evidence Based Policy Fund project;

  (iv) of £40,000 from non-Voted Regional Development Agency expenditure to record increased voted Departmental expenditure on the Evidence Based Policy Fund project;

  (v) transfer of £105,000 from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the Farm Business Advice Scheme;

  (vi) transfer of £156,000 to British Trade International in respect of Japan Electronics Business Association and Pacific Rim Electronics Business Association;

  (vii) utilisation of £15,000,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision for the Partnership Fund (Partnership at Work with the TUC & CBI);

  (viii) transfer of £400,000 to the National Assembly for Wales for Manufacturing Advice Service for Regional Centre for Manufacturing Excellence in Wales;

  (ix) transfer of £116,000 from the Department for Education and Science for the Marine Skills Database Project;

  (x) an increase of £22,133,000 in non Voted Regional Development Agency expenditure offset by an increase in voted appropriations in aid of an equivalent amount to reflect additional receipts from several other government departments (mainly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister);

  (xi) utilisation of £5,700,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for University Innovation Centres;

  (xii) utilisation of £4,600,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for additional funding to Ofcom;

  (xiii) transfer of £30,000 to the Home Office for Crimes Against Business;

  (xiv) transfer of £30,000 to the Department for Education and Science for Support for Enterprising Communities;

  (xv) transfer of £2,538,000 to the Scottish Executive for innovative schemes to extend broadband networks;
  42WS
  (xvi) transfer of £1,335,000 to the National Assembly for Wales for innovative schemes to extend broadband networks;

  (xvii) utilisation of £14,400,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for ISERBS;

  (xviii) transfer of £ 100,000 in relation to Invest UK DTI Funded Overseas the FCO;

  (xix) utilisation of £2,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for development of "Oracle Hi";

  (xx) transfer of £225,000 to the Scottish Executive in connection with Stop Now Orders (New Burdens);

  (xxi) utilisation of £2,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase the department's subscription to the International Atomic Energy Agency;

  (xxii) utilisation of £ 1,100,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased expenditure on the Partnership Training Fund manufacturing package;

  (xxiii) utilisation of £1,300,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased expenditure on the National Minimum Wage;

  (xxiv) utilisation of £2,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased expenditure on duty to consider flexible working;

  (xxv) utilisation of £900,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for legal costs;

  (xxvi) utilisation of £348,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement transferred from the Department for Education and Science for the Work-life Balance Invest to Save project;

  (xxvii) utilisation of £8,700,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to make an agreed programme to administration virement in support of ACAS, the Insolvency Service, coal health claims and the Office of Civil Nuclear Security);

  (xxviii) utilisation of £1,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to make an agreed programme to administration virement in support of the establishment of the Liabilities Management Authority;

  (xxix) utilisation of £4,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement in support of the establishment of the Liabilities Management Authority;

  (xxx) utilisation of £256,000 in administration costs in respect of the Evidence Based Policy Capital Modernisation Fund Project;

  (xxxi) utilisation of £548,000 of Invest to Save funding for Claims Handling in the Redundancy Payments Scheme (CHIRPS);
  43WS
  (xxxii) transfer of £3,230,000 in administration costs, £200,000 in programme and £7,005,000 in non Voted expenditure from the Cabinet Office to reflect Machinery of Government transfers in respect of Women and Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission;

  (xxxiii) utilisation of £300,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund National Weights and Measures Laboratory market development;

  (xxxiv) transfer of £3,319,000 from capital to administration in connection with British Trade International to fund IT development under the ELGAR PFI contract;

  (xxxv) utilisation of £6,700,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non Voted Coal Authority expenditure for minewater liabilities;

  (xxxvi) utilisation of £5,800,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Competition Commission;

  (xxxvii) utilisation of £300,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non voted expenditure of SITPRO;

  (xxxviii) removal from DEL of £5,000 in voted recoveries of coal health claim overpayments.

  RfR2

  (i) utilisation of £25,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision to increase Grant to the Royal Society for the foot and mouth enquiry;

  (ii) utilisation of £9,076,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for Knowledge Transfer;

  (iii) transfer of £75,000 to the Department of Health for Human Genetic Research;

  (iv) utilisation of £1,023,000 from the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for increased non voted expenditure by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council;

  (v) utilisation of £8,000,000 from the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to make an agreed capital to resource virement for non voted expenditure by the Medical Research Council;

  (vi) utilisation of £712,000 from the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non Voted expenditure by the Medical Research Council;

  (vii) utilisation of £4,450,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non Voted expenditure by the Natural Environment Research Council;

  (viii) utilisation of £5,352,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non Voted expenditure by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;
  44WS
  (ix) utilisation of £83,000 of the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to increase non-voted expenditure of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

  2. There is also an increase in non-Voted expenditure on liabilities of £27,700,000 (£20,100,000 on the Coal Operating Subsidy, £2,000,000 on Enemy Property Claims, £2,900,000 on coal redundancy packages and £2,700,000 on compensation to trawlermen), and the removal from DEL of £357,400 of non voted expenditure on coal health liabilities and £399,895,000 of CFER receipts related to coal pension fund surpluses.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from

  RfRl

  (i) utilisation of £1,400,000 capital from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for Rover Task Force;

  (ii) utilisation of £3,250,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund project for business.gov;

  (iii) utilisation of £4,300,000 capital from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for University Innovation Centres;

  (iv) utilisation of £ 10,100,000 from the unused balance of the Department's capital end-year flexibility entitlement to offset a shortfall in launch aid receipts;

  (v) utilisation of £48,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's capital end-year flexibility entitlement for the Rolls Royce Trent 600 and 900 projects;

  (vi) provision of £48,500,000 from the reserve for the Rolls Royce Trent 600 and 900 projects;

  (vii) utilisation of £2,700,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased expenditure on Parental Leave;

  (viii) utilisation of £700,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Employment Tribunals Service;

  (ix) utilisation of £233,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Employment Tribunals Service Capital Modernisation Fund project;

  (x) utilisation of £10,000 capital from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement transferred from the Department for Education and Science for the Work-life Balance Invest to Save project;

  (xi) transfer of £3,319,000 from capital to administration in connection with British Trade International to fund IT development under the ELGAR PFI contract;

  (xii) virement of £5,000,000 from non Voted Regional Development Agency expenditure to departmental capital for accommodation;

  (xiii) transfer of £15,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (capital) to fund a grant to the UK Science Parks Association;
  45WS
  (xiv) utilisation of £8,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Competition Commission.

  RfR2

  (i) utilisation of £1,458,000 from the unused balance of the Department's resource end-year flexibility entitlement to make a virement to capital to fund increased non voted expenditure by the Natural Environment Research Council;

  (ii) utilisation of £4,358,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased non voted expenditure by the Natural Environment Research Council;

  Resources (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  1

  637

  -221

  858

  0

  804

  766

  38

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the partial take up of £713,000 end year flexibility, of which £472,000 is required for additional consultancy, £91,000 for legal costs and £150,000 for an extension to the twinning with Poland programme under the EU's PHARE initiative. The increase will be offset by a corresponding increase in appropriations in aid.

  Resources (£000)

  Capital (£000)

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non-voted

  77

  48,245

  48,245

  0

  0

  2,398

  2,398

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the following:

  (i) the take up of end year flexibility of £77,000 in respect of the ring-fenced Invest to Save Budget approved by Parliament.

  (ii) the provision of a decrease of £717k in gross resources and (ii) Appropriations in Aid, resulting from a reduction in expected income from Competition Act notifications and recovered legal fees, the departure of minor occupiers from the building, and the end to the provision of common services to other departments. In addition, the reflection of changes in accounting policy on EC receipts to bring OFT in line with other government departments.

  The increases in the above Estimates will be offset by transfers or charges to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of Public expenditure.

  Power Station (Marchwood)
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  I have today decided to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Marchwood Power Ltd for the construction of a 860 gas-fired power station at Marchwood in Hampshire. The station has also today been given clearance as a gas-fired station
  46WS
  (iii) utilisation of £790,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to fund increased non voted expenditure by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;

  (iv) utilisation of £87,399,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Joint Infrastructure Fund. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office of Telecommunications DEL will be increased by £1,000 from -£222,000 to -£221,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £563,000 from £18,015,000 to £18,578,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office of Fair Trading resource DEL will be increased by £77,000 from £48,168,000 to £48,245,000, and the administration costs limits will be increased by £77,000 from £48,985,000 to £49,062,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
  under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 and planning permission for the station has been deemed to be granted subject to 50 conditions agreed with the New Forest District Council and the Hampshire County Council.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rights of Way
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael)
  I am pleased to announce that on 16 November The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No.2) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/2833)(C.89), was made bringing into force the rights of way improvement planning provisions in sections 60 to 62 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 on 21 November 2002. We are now publishing the guidance to local highway authorities on planning improvements to their rights of way network, which takes account of responses to the consultation paper that we issued at the end of last year. The guidance is being sent out to all local authorities in England.

  The guidance clarifies the new duty on local authorities to make a strategic and forward-looking assessment of their rights of way network, thinking about how any shortcomings might be overcome by making use of the powers they already have. This new

  47WS
  approach will be of particular use in those areas that are tourist destinations, where the local economy is heavily dependent on the income that visitors bring. However, last year's foot-and-mouth outbreak showed just how important public rights of way are to rural businesses and communities generally.

  Access is also important to local people. Expanding our public rights of way network and improving access brings great health benefits. The changes don't have to be major. Sometimes the creation of a short connecting path is all that is necessary to provide a useful local cut through, to provide access to a local beauty spot, or to make the final link in a circular walk.

  Nor is it just about walkers. The rights of way network also provides access to the countryside for other types of users, and the planning process should look at how well they are catered for. One major aim is to increase provision for horse riders, carriage drivers and cyclists. We also want to increase access for those who cannot easily use all the current paths, particularly those with mobility problems and the blind or partially sighted.

  Some local authorities do an excellent job of maintaining and promoting their local footpaths but I know that there is concern that some local authorities fail to fulfil their existing duties and may be slow to plan for and implement their rights of way improvements. There are a number of ways in which we are trying to address these issues.

  First, we have given local authorities extra resources for the new obligations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2002 and I wrote to every local authority in England to remind them that the resources are there in the local government support grant. It is for local authorities to achieve the intended outcome.

  Secondly, we are sponsoring the Countryside Agency to work with eight authorities, one from each region of England, to provide exemplar planning between October 2002 and October 2003. This will help to develop good practice and the lessons learned will be disseminated to other authorities at regular intervals. It is intended that this exemplar planning will demonstrate the value of planning to improve the network for people of all levels of interest, ability and experience.

  Finally, we want to achieve the long-term sustainability of the network while reducing the number of separate planning requirements. This is in line with the Government's wish to give local authorities additional freedoms and flexibilities. Rights of way improvement planning will therefore be incorporated into the local transport planning process from 2005 onwards, when the next 5-year Local Transport Plans are due to be produced. In this way we intend to ensure that the full importance of the rights of way is stressed in the light of the contribution it can make to transport, recreation and health. This will encourage a focused and joined up approach by local authorities. It is envisaged that rights of way improvement planning will be a distinct strand within the new Local Transport Plans. The revised Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans(planned for 2004) will cover this point.
  48WS
  In the meantime, local highway authorities should use the new guidance, being published tomorrow, to plan effective improvements to their rights of way network in line with their new duty. Under the provisions of section 60 to 62 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, local highway authorities are required by law to prepare the first rights of way improvement plans within five years. We suggest that local highway authorities prepare them earlier than this if possible. Indeed, it is encouraging to know that many authorities have already started on the planning process. This work will make a positive difference and will be every bit as valid after rights of way improvement planning is incorporated into the local transport planning process

  A copy of the commencement order and statutory guidance have been placed in the House of Commons Library. Further information can be found on the Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/index.htm. A copy of the summary of the responses to the consultation exercise earlier this year is also on the website.

  Access to Land
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael)
  I am pleased to announce that we have decided that the new right for the public to walk on mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land will be rolled out on a region by region basis. We are convinced that the best approach is to give walkers the right to walk in open countryside and on registered common land as early as possible. Rather than wait for the mapping process to be completed for the whole country, I intend to open up land in the first two regions, the South East and Central Southern England, to public access during the summer of 2004.

  This is a demanding timetable which requires conclusive maps for those regions to be available, restrictions on access and necessary exclusions to be in place and guidance and codes of practice to be available to walkers and landowners. It is most important that all these mechanisms are in force in each region before any access land is made available to the public to ensure that the interests of both land managers and walkers are safeguarded. We expect all access land to be opened not later than the end of 2005.

  Opening some access land more than a year earlier than originally planned shows our commitment to making the provisions of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a reality. Because of that Act, people will be able to walk on land in some of the most beautiful areas of the countryside that were previously off-limits and rural businesses in those areas will benefit from new trading opportunities.

  In bringing the new right of access into force, we have maintained a careful balance between the rights of walkers and the rights of land managers. It does not affect land managers' discretion to use or develop land as they think best, taking into account other regulations governing changes of land use. In the vast majority of cases it is likely to have very little impact on operational practices. Owners and occupiers will be able to close their land for up to 28 days each year for any reason, and to seek further restrictions or exclusions of access where necessary.

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' first autumn Performance Report was published on 27 November 2002. This report is a new requirement under the revised framework for Departments to report on progress towards their Public Service Agreement targets. Copies of the report have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

TRANSPORT

  SRA Board Appointments
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I am pleased to inform the House, that I have appointed three new non-executive members to the board of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA).

  Urmila Banerjee CBE, Janet Lewis-Jones and David Norgrove will be appointed for four years from 1 December 2002.

  These new appointments will greatly strengthen the board by bringing particular skills and understanding of the interface between Government and industry; consumer issues and perspectives, and financial management. My decision to appoint Janet Lewis-Jones was taken after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with sections 202 (3) and 202 (5) of the Transport Act 2000. She is Welsh, lives in Wales and is therefore familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of Wales in relation to the railways.

  From December 1st, the SRA Board will consist of the following members:

  Board Member

  Expiry Date of Current Appointment

  Richard Bowker (Chair & Chief Exec.)

  November 2006

  David Quarmby (Deputy Chair)

  November 2004

  Lew Adams OBE

  November 2004

  Urmila Banerjee CBE

  November 2006

  David Begg

  April 2005

  Willie Gallagher

  April 2005

  David Grayson

  April 2005

  Pen Kent

  November 2004

  Janet Lewis-Jones

  November 2006

  Jeremy Mayhew

  April 2005

  David Norgrove

  November 2006

  All non-executive members receive annual remuneration of £14,190, with the exception of the Deputy Chair, David Quarmby and the Chair of the Audit Committee, Pen Kent, who receive £18,919.

HEALTH

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  The Food Standards Agency's Autumn Performance Report, Cm 5694, was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that, from April 2003, the National Health Service pension scheme will assume its full liability for pensions increase costs. The change, which will bring the National Health Service into line with other public service schemes, will mean an increase in employer contributions from 7 to 14 per cent, of pay. Employee contributions will remain unchanged.

  The additional costs will be fully covered by a transfer of funds into the Department of Health's departmental expenditure limit (DEL) baseline. This will be extra funding, on top of expenditure plans announced in the last Budget, and is included in the Chancellor's pre-Budget Report made yesterday. This means there will be no reduction in the resources already earmarked for healthcare.

  Arrangements for increasing the employer contribution rate will be phased in with costs paid centrally from the Department's DEL in the first year. It is expected that employers will be charged the higher rate from April 2004.

  A Departmental working group has been remitted to develop detailed implementation plans for handling the transfer. Alongside the financial arrangements for transferring and allocating resources, it will look at the human resource aspects of the change. This will include improving recognition of the full value of National Health Service pension scheme in recruitment, retention and return to service as well as the full costs of employment.

  The new 14 per cent employer contribution rate is based on the Government actuary's emerging findings in his latest valuation of the National Health Service pension scheme. The Government actuary's report is expected to be published in the new year and copies will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Learning and Research
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  On 13 June 2002, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) announced a joint Ministerial review of education, training and research in the National Health Service in order to ensure that new management structures are working effectively, and committed the Government to announcing the terms of reference for this review before the end of the year.
  51WS
  My noble Friend Lord Hunt, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, Department for Education and Skills (Mrs Hodge), Ms Jane Hutt, Minister for Health and Social Services at the National Assembly for Wales and I have agreed the terms of reference. Prominent among the issues that led to the announcement of the review was that primary care trusts (PCTs) in their effort to deliver improved local patient care also focussed on education and research. The terms of reference directly tackle this concern and are, in the light of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, to:
  review the role of PCTs in ensuring the right balance is struck between care for NHS patients, learning and research;
  consider the responsibilities of PCTs in supporting research and learning across all health care professions in the NHS and identify those responsibilities that are proving difficult to achieve;
  report to Ministers by December 2003, including any recommendations for action that may be required to enable PCTs to discharge their responsibilities more effectively; and
  advise how the findings might inform the process of implementing local health boards in Wales and the Welsh Assembly's strategy on continuing professional development.

  In line with commitments already given by my noble Friend Lord Hunt, the review will:
  be carried out jointly by the Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and the National Assembly for Wales;
  be overseen by Ministers from each Department;
  cover the full range of healthcare professions, including but not limited to doctors;

  Resources Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non-voted

  Capital Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  £'000 Non-voted

  Department of Health DEL 734,761

  53,992,685

  54,245,237

  -252,552

  -149,547

  2,348,945

  109,765

  2,239,180

  Food Standards Agency DEL 16,950

  133,988

  133,988

  0

  0

  637

  637

  0

  Total DH/ FSA Group DEL 751,711

  54,126,673

  54,379,225

  -252,552

  -149,547

  2,349,582

  110,402

  2,239,180

  The change in the resource element of the DEL for the Department of Health arises from: the take up of end year flexibility £404,844,000 for health authority and central allocations as set out in Table 6 of the public expenditure 2001–02 provisional outturn White Paper Cm 5574 published in July 2002; a change in the level of National Health Service trust depreciation £184,000,000; a net transfer from the Home Office of £3,900,000 comprising £1,824,000 for match funded social care projects, £938,000 community projects relating to assessment and treatment of people with severe personality disorder, £673,000 for a contribution towards the Victoria Climbie Inquiry, £450,000 for Broadmoor hospital pilot ward, £30,000 for a survey of smoking, drinking and drug use in young people, offset by £15,000 for a grant to Mediation UK to recruit volunteer service managers; from the Scottish Executive £385,000 for a contribution towards the Nursing Midwives Council; from the Office for National
  52WS
  report by December 2003, and
  provide an opportunity to consult widely, including with experts
  in the fields of health, education, and research.

  The review will be overseen, on Ministers' behalf, by the newly formed strategic learning and research advisory group for health and social care which has been set up specifically to improve and oversee joint working at the interface between the health and social care and education sectors at central government level, and which the Permanent Secretaries of the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills jointly chair.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) departmental expenditure limits (DELs) will be increased by £602,164,000 from £55,874,091,000 to £56,476,255,000 and the administration cost limits (ACL) will increase by £8,952,000 from £370,830,000 to £379,782,000. The Department of Health DEL will be increased by £585,214,000 from £55,756,416,000 to £56,341,630,000 and the ACL will increase by £6,136,000 from £318,527,000 to £324,663,000. The Food Standards Agency DEL will be increased by £16,950,000 from £117,675,000 to £134,625,000 and the ACL will increase by £2,816,000 from £52,303,000 to £55,119,000. The impact on resource and capital are set out in the following table.

  Statistics £130,000 (£127,000 administration costs) for the neighbourhood statistics programme; from the Department of Trade and Industry £75,000 (administration costs) for a contribution towards the costs of the human genetics commission.

  These increases are offset by a transfer to the Department for Education and Skills of £8,120,000 for drug prevention and the healthy schools programme.

  The Department of Health's administration cost limit has increased by £6.136,000 from £318,527,000 to £324,663,000. In addition to the changes detailed above there is a transfer of £7,500,000 for education and training, offset by £1,566,000 for hospital episode statistics, the disability equipment evaluation programme, the NHS appointments commission and the standing committee for hospitals of the European Union.
  53WS
  The increase in the FSA DEL is the result of take-up of end year flexibility of £16,950,000 (of which £2,816,000 is administration costs). The FSA manages it resource spend over the three year Government spending review period. This end year flexibility is needed to address future FSA and meat hygiene services funding pressures that have already been identified.

  As a result of these changes the gross administration cost limit for the FSA has increased by £2,816,000 to £55,119,000.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and take up of end year flexibility and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Farm Incomes
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I am pleased to report to the House that forecasts for this year suggest an encouraging rise in farm incomes, of 11 per cent (9 per cent in real terms), in comparison to 2001.

  We recognise that farmers are experiencing hard times, therefore any increase in incomes is welcome news. This is the second year running that there has been an increase— a reversal of a sharp decline since 1995, although we recognise this remains £2.99 billion below the yearly average for TIFF, for the period 1989 to 1994.

  These increases reflect the efforts of farmers to improve business performance. Government is playing its part by investing in the rural economy. There is a lot more to do, but we are working with the industry to create the right conditions for a sustainable and competitive future for farmers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Work and Pensions' Autumn Performance Report, which details the Department's progress against its Public Service Agreement objectives since spring 2002, has been published today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) inspection report on Caerphilly County Borough Council was published today and copies of the report in English and Welsh have been placed in the Library.

  The report finds that Caerphilly County Borough Council does not have an up-to-date corporate document that sets out the aims and objectives for the benefit, service.
  54WS
  The council placed an emphasis on paying benefit quickly and the achievement of this compromised the aims of getting payments right first time and deterring fraud. From its sample, the report finds that 100 per cent of Rent Rebate and Council Tax Benefit, and 84 per cent of Rent Allowance claims were processed within 14 days of all information being available. The council had no backlogs of work to hinder the claims processing times. However, the council failed to routinely verify information and evidence in support of claims. Security was not an integral part of the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Caerphilly County Borough Council had not implemented the Verification Framework and had no plans to do so. From its sample, the report finds that the quality of verification was poor compared to the Verification Framework benchmark and that the gateway to the benefits system was weak.

  The report finds that the council effectively administered renewal claims and ensured continuity of benefit payments to claimants. However, over 1,000 claims were not renewed in 2000/01 and the council took limited action to establish the reasons.

  The council dealt with changes of circumstances promptly, pursued overpayments of benefit vigorously and had an effective rate of recovery. The council made use of legal action and debt collection agencies to recover debt where other recovery options had failed.

  The council investigated benefit fraud and had completed successful prosecutions. However, there was some scope for improvement in working with other organisations and in the quality and speed of investigations.

  Management reporting and risk analysis also needed improvement, as the lack of reliable management information and risk analysis impacted on the council's ability to effectively manage its benefit service and counter fraud activity.

  In 2000/01, Caerphilly County Borough Council administered approximately* £39.5 million in housing benefits.

  My Rt hon Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Tenancy Deposits
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of a consultation paper on tenancy deposits. The research report on the pilot tenancy deposit scheme is also to be published in the week beginning 16 December. Summaries of both documents are also being published today. Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House. The consultation paper will initiate a debate on what action might be taken to address disputes over tenancy deposits.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Winter Supplementary Estimate
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary

  Resources Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non-voted

  Capital Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non-voted

  £63,490,000

  £490,354,000

  £479,211,000

  £11,143,000

  £1,700,000

  £17,250,000

  £17,250,000

  0

  The Crown Prosecution Service's DEL will be increased by £60,190,000 from £402,978,000 to £463,168,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £59,990,000 from £282,059,000 to £342,049,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from a transfer of £58,490,000 resources and £1,700,00 capital from the Criminal Justice System Reserve. The increases will be funded from the Criminal Justice System reserve and therefore do not constitute a claim on the reserve. The increases in the resource and capital elements of the DEL arise from speeding up the reform of the CPS to allow it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets.

  The Serious Fraud Office DEL will increase- by £5,000,000 from £21,950,000 to £26,950,000 and the Administration Costs Limit will increase by £1,120,000 from £15,390,000 to £16,510,000

  This Supplementary Estimate provides additional resources for the administration costs and operational costs incurred by the Serious Fraud Office to fund higher than expected caseload activity and expenditure.

  The increases will be funded directly from the Consolidated Fund Contingency Reserve.

DEFENCE

  Royal Artillery Regiment
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  We have been looking at how to optimise the Royal Artillery to meet the demands of the new security environment.

  The Army currently has two combined regular Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) (Phoenix) Regiments; 32 Regiment Royal Artillery based at Larkhill, Wiltshire and 39 Regiment Royal Artillery at Harlow Hill near Newcastle. Each of these regiments has two batteries of nine MLRS launchers, and one battery of three troops of UAVs (Phoenix).

  As a result of past successful deployments the capability of Phoenix has become more widely recognised and valued within the military command structure. It has, therefore, been decided that a revised structure would provide a better focus for UAVs. In line with the direction set in the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review this new structure will establish UAVs as a valuable asset for surveillance and intelligence
  56WS
  Supplementary Estimates, the Attorney General's Departments DEL will be increased by £65,190,000 from £442,414,000 to £507,604,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £61,110,000 from £307,588,000 to £368,698,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:
  gathering in addition to being Royal Artillery target acquisition assets to support the Indirect Fire System. The impact on the Royal Artillery will be the separation of these capabilities and the creation of discrete regiments; UAV (Phoenix) at Larkhill and MLRS at Harlow Hill. The reorganisation will require inter-regimental moves of complete sub-units but will not have any significant impact on the overall numbers of personnel at each site.

  The Field Standard B2 variant of the Rapier missile system has reached the end of its useful life and will be withdrawn from service by 31 March 2003. The system is currently operated by 22 Regiment Royal Artillery, based at Kirton-in-Lindsey, Lincolnshire. Following the withdrawal of the Rapier FSB2 equipment, 22 Regiment will undertake a tour in Cyprus, in the infantry role, during the second half of 2003 before it is disbanded in March 2004. Personnel from the regiment will be re-deployed to other Royal Artillery units to support the introduction of planned new "network-centric" capabilities as described in the New Chapter, including the Watchkeeper UAV.

  Our future Rapier air defence capability will be based on the more advanced Field Standard C model operated by 16 Regiment Royal Artillery and the Royal Air Force Regiment. The capability of 16 Regiment will be enhanced by the creation of a fourth battery. In addition, we plan to move 16 Regiment from Woolwich to Kirton-in-Lindsey in late 2004. It will then be close to both the Air Warfare Centre at RAF Waddington and the Joint Rapier Training Unit at Honington bringing a number of practical benefits.

TRANSPORT

  Streetwork (Halcrow's)
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  Regulations under section 74 of the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 came into force in April 2001. These allow highway authorities to charge utility companies for works in the street which overrun an agreed deadline.

  Following the implementation of these powers my Department appointed consultants, Halcrow, to monitor their effectiveness in reducing disruption on the highway. Copies of Halcrow's interim report were placed in the libraries of both Houses earlier this year.
  57WS
  Halcrow have now produced their first annual report on these powers: Assessing the Extent of Street Works and Monitoring the Effectiveness of Section 74 in Reducing Disruption. The report consists of two volumes; Volume 1 is the main report and Volume 2 contains accompanying tables and charts. Copies of each have been placed in the libraries of both Houses today.

HOME

  In Country Asylum Seekers
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  Following Royal Assent of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on 7 November 2002 section 55 of that Act will be brought into force on 8 January 2003.

  From that date, if an applicant for support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) makes an asylum claim immediately on arrival at the port then support will be granted provided the other criteria for support are fulfilled. If the person fails, without a good reason, to make an asylum claim immediately at the port of arrival then support will be refused unless one of the exceptions applies.

  These exceptions cover families with children, those with special needs, those claiming asylum in country following a significant change in circumstances in their country of origin (provided they make their asylum claim at the earliest possible opportunity following that change of circumstances) and those who can show they would otherwise suffer treatment contrary to article 3 European Convention on Human Rights. Persons falling within these exceptions may be granted support (assuming they otherwise qualify for it) even if they have not claimed asylum on arrival at the port.

  But apart from these exceptions, we expect all single asylum seekers or couples without children who wish to claim asylum and who want MASS support to make an immediate application for asylum at the port of arrival. It will not be acceptable for an asylum seeker wanting MASS support to postpone making an asylum claim unless there is a very good reason for doing so. And even if there is a good reason for not claiming asylum immediately on arrival at the port, the person must claim asylum as soon as possible thereafter.

  The Secretary of State is prohibited by statute from providing support unless he is satisfied that the person claiming support has made the asylum claim as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the United Kingdom. In most cases, for those not within the exceptions, that will mean, claiming asylum immediately on arrival at the port.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Freedom of Information Act
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  My right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced that, in accordance with section 87 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, he has laid before Parliament the annual report on the progress made in implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Copies of the Report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy of the Report on the review of legislation prohibiting the disclosure of information will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Access to Medicines Working Group
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  The report of the UK Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World was published on Thursday 28 November 2002.

  The Working Group was chaired by the Secretary of State for International Development. It's members include representatives from the Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury, pharmaceutical industry leaders, representatives of the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the European Commission, Charitable Foundations and the Ugandan High Commissioner.

  AIDS, TB and Malaria cause six million deaths a year— 10% of the world annual death toll. This means the loss of $120 billion value in work and productivity each year mostly in the developing world thus impoverishing families and countries that carry this disease burden. AIDS alone has reduced average national economic growth rates across Africa by 2 to 4 percentage points. Many of these deaths could be prevented with existing treatments— but— just one example— in Africa only one in three people have access to effective malaria treatment.

  The report proposes that pharmaceutical companies provide drugs at near to cost price for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria to the poorest countries, whose governments guarantee that tariffs are removed and reduced cost drugs will not be re-exported. Development agencies commit to working with such governments to develop basic health care systems capable of delivering the drugs to the people in need.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available from the Vote Office and from the Department. It can also be accessed at: www.dfid.gov.uk.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Very briefly, these amendments fall into four categories. The first is consequential on Welsh devolution. The second is the consequence of references to definitions of local authorities and government departments. The third makes House of Lords practice consistent with that of the House of Commons. The fourth makes a number of minor amendments resulting from recent experience with the procedure.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
Amendment No.
Standing Order 4A
1. Line 3, after "London" insert "and, if it affects Wales, at an office in Cardiff"
2. Line 14, leave out "or community" and insert ", or (in Wales) in the county or county borough in which the community,"
3. Line 35, after "district" insert "or (in Wales) in the county or county borough,"
Standing Order 24
4. Line 1, after "notice" insert "under the preceding orders"
Standing Order 26
5. Line 4, at end insert "(see also Standing Order 201 (Time for delivering notices and making deposits))"
Standing Order 27
6. Line 75, leave out "Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions" and insert "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
Standing Order 27A
7. Line 34, leave out "Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions" and insert "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
Standing Order 29
8. Line 8, leave out ", Local Government and the Regions"
Standing Order 34
9. Line 12. leave out ", Local Government and the Regions"
Standing Order 37
10. Line 10, leave out "Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions" and insert "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
11. Line 18, leave out "Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions" and insert "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
Standing Order 39
12. Line 5, leave out ", the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions"
13. Line 6, after "Industry" insert ", the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
14. Line 18, leave out "General Register Office" and insert "Office for National Statistics"
Standing Order 45
15. Line 17, leave out ", Local Government and the Regions"
Standing Order 47
16. Line 12, leave out "Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions" and insert "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
Standing Order 98
17. Line 1, leave out "not be read a first time earlier than" and insert "be read a first time on"

(a) 22nd January or, if the House is riot sitting on that day, the first sitting day after that, or

(b) the day given by paragraph (1A), whichever is the later.

(1A) The day given by this paragraph is"
18. Leave out line 16.
Standing Order 127
19. Line 8, leave out "an officer or and insert "a person nominated by"
Standing Order 139
20. Line 11, leave out ", Local Government and the Regions"
21. Line 27, leave out ", Local Government and the Regions".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like very briefly to make a slight plea. When we are being asked to do this sort of thing in future, may it be made quite clear to us without our having to look at more than one document what it is we are seeking to amend? The Standing Orders relating to public business were themselves amended in July 2001, I believe, and we are now required to amend further that amended version. That seems to make for undue complexity. I hope that the noble Lord will make appropriate representations to Ministers, who wish to have their papers correctly addressed to them, kindly to make it more convenient for us to do their will.
Noble Lords will have noticed—I can hardly bear to miss this chance opportunity—that the substantial figure of the Deputy Prime Minister figures rather largely in these amendments. I am holding a book outlining the functions of government in which the

859
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister takes up no fewer than 40 pages and 120 columns. It is a substantial entry. However, we can hardly call that joined-up government—it is overgrown government. It would be appropriate if we could persuade the Deputy Prime Minister to change the name of his office, as he calls it, to those of a number of departments. He has a huge empire, and simply to call it an office is stretching language too far.
I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time, but I would be very grateful to the noble Lord if he would convey that message to the appropriate quarters.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I wonder if I may ask the Chairman of Committees to elucidate a little further the first section to which he referred, which relates to Wales. I should be very grateful if he would expand on what he said and tell us precisely what this "consequence of devolution" actually means.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, we do our best to keep up with the changes that occur. The most recent book was printed in May 2001. Sadly, by July that year, we had to make a number of changes to mark the demise of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the environment bit was hived off to agriculture, leaving the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Now, one year later, we have to make amendments which recognise the split of the Department for Transport from that department and the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. For the time being, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that we should press for another change because we have not yet had even these changes printed. Nevertheless, we do our best to keep up.
As for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, under Standing Order 4A, the first one referred to, copies of Bills have been made available at an office in London, at an office in Edinburgh if the Bill affected Scotland, and at an office in Belfast if it affected Northern Ireland. The difference is that if the Bill affects Wales, it will be made available at an office in Cardiff as well. I hope that that clarifies the position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Reform
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on issues relating to House of Lords reform;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
860

L. Archer of Sandwell,

V. Bledisloe,

L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,

L. Carter,

L. Forsyth of Drumlean,

B. Gibson of Market Rasen,

L. Goodhart,

L. Howe of Aberavon,

L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay.

B. O'Cathain,

E. Selborne,

L. Weatherill;

That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 3rd December next at 10 o'clock in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Iraq
11.11 a.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean) rose to move, That this House takes note of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 7th November, I repeated a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary about the negotiations on a new United Nations Security Council resolution. I said then that I hoped that a large majority of the Security Council would vote in favour of the resolution. As your Lordships know, the following day, on 8th November, Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted unanimously.
The resolution was supported by all five permanent members of the Security Council, and by countries as diverse as Mexico, Cameroon, Ireland and Syria. Resolution 1441 represents the considered and unanimous view of the international community that Iraq must end its defiance of the United Nations and comply with its obligations.
Negotiations on Resolution 1441 were long and intensive. It took eight weeks of unrelenting high-level diplomatic contacts. Its unanimous adoption is a tribute to the efforts of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is also a tribute to the expertise and professionalism of many British diplomats and officials in New York, London and around the world. Noble Lords have recognised that in previous deliberations on this topic in the past few weeks; and I reiterate that commendation now.
Resolution 1441 gives the Iraqi regime a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. When we discussed that on 7th November, some noble Lords were concerned that the resolution was not one with which Iraq could comply. I assure your Lordships that it is not designed to trick or trap the Iraqi regime. It is designed to achieve the peaceful disarmament and destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction through an effective inspection regime. It sets out a path to achieve that peacefully if the Iraqis choose to follow it.
We should be under no illusion about Saddam Hussein's ability to obfuscate and evade. He has been doing just that for a decade. Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei have a difficult and sensitive job ahead of them. They must be allowed to do the work that the United Nations has mandated them to do, and we wish them well. In passing, let me add that we reject recent ill-founded criticisms of the inspectors' records. The Iraqis were able to exploit loopholes in the previous inspection regimes in order to confound the inspectors; it is not correct to blame Dr Mix and Dr El Baradei for those deficiencies. One of the new resolution's merits is that it has significantly strengthened the hand of the inspectors. So Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei have the complete support and confidence of Her Majesty's Government and the international community. It is now up to the Iraqi regime to recognise its responsibilities and give its full co-operation to UNMOVIC and the teams in Iraq.
We have heard only this morning of allegations that the Iraqi regime is bugging the weapons inspectors' accommodation. Any interference with the inspectors would be a serious matter but it would hardly be a surprise, given Saddam's record of dishonest dealings with the international community.
I know that noble Lords have questions about how Resolution 1441 will be implemented. Your Lordships have asked about what would constitute a material breach, about who will decide if a material breach has taken place and about the possibility of a second Security Council resolution. Questions have also been raised about the process of continued consultation of noble Lords and those in another place. I want to take this opportunity today to set out the Government's view on those questions. But I should also make it clear at the outset that I agree with the points already forcefully made by some noble Lords. I do not believe that it is sensible to speculate on all the circumstances that might arise and how the Government might react to all Iraqi actions. Surprise may be a key advantage to us.
Resolution 1441 makes it clear that Iraq,
"has been and remains in material breach of its obligations",
under existing Security Council resolutions, in particular through its,
"failure to co-operate with United Nations inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency".
The resolution sets out the demand that Iraq confirms within seven days of the resolution being passed its intention to comply fully with it. Iraq has now sent two letters in response. Both letters have been grudging in tone and long on denial of the legitimacy and legality of UNSCR 1441. However, we are treating them as positive responses to the demand of the Security Council.
The next deadline is 8th December. By that time, under operative paragraph 3, Iraq must have provided to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Security Council an,
"accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems".
Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei have already given clear advice to the Iraqi regime on what is expected of it. The Government of Iraq must account for large stocks of WMD, which the previous UNSCOM reports, the last of which was prepared in January 1999, recorded as unaccounted for. That material included up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent: more than 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents; and large quantities of growth media acquired for the use of the production of biological weapons—enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax that Iraq admits to having manufactured.
Inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA resumed in Iraq yesterday, four weeks ahead of the Security Council deadline. The inspectors will be required to update the Security Council on progress by 25th January.
Operative paragraph 4 of the resolution says t hat a further material breach arises where there are,
"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq … and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this Resolution".
That defines in general terms what a further material breach will consist of. As I have already said, it is never possible to give an exhaustive list of all the conceivable behaviours that would be covered. That judgment must be made against real circumstances as and when they arise. Those circumstances are by their nature unpredictable and it would be wrong to second guess or hypothesise. But I can assure noble Lords that a material breach does not mean something trivial. It means something significant: some behaviour or pattern of behaviour that is serious; deliberate and concerted attempts to obstruct or impede the inspectors or to intimidate witnesses; behaviour or patterns of behaviour that show Iraq's intention to defy the stated will of the international community in the shape of Resolution 1441.
Some noble Lords have been concerned about who decides what constitutes a material breach. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised her concerns about that point. If there is evidence of attempts to mislead the inspectors, to conceal information, or failure to comply with a resolution or to co-operate with the inspection teams, that can be reported to the Security Council either by a Security Council member or by the inspectors themselves. Under the resolution the inspectors are required to report to the Security Council any Iraqi interference or failure to comply with its disarmament obligations, and the resolution makes it clear that these include all the other relevant UNSC resolutions as well as 1441. But whoever reports a material breach, it is inconceivable that the Council would act on such a report without seeking the opinion of the inspectors.
If we reach such a situation—I hope that we do not—an immediate meeting of the Security Council would be called to consider the situation. Operative paragraph 12 requires the Security Council to convene,
"immediately upon receipt of a report under paragraphs 4 and 11 to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council Resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
At that point there would be a discussion about the most suitable response by the international community. Those deliberations would precede any remedial action, including military action, to enforce the Security Council's will.
Let me at this point move on to the question of a second resolution. As I made clear to your Lordships on Monday, the preference of the British Government in the event of a material breach is that there should be a second Security Council resolution authorising military action. The issue of whether Resolution 1441 should stipulate that there should be a second resolution to authorise such action was discussed among the members of the Security Council but a proposal to that effect was never tabled. Resolution 1441, which was adopted by unanimity, does not say that there must be a second resolution to authorise military action in the event of a further material breach by Iraq.
We place our faith in the United Nations to shoulder its responsibilities should a material breach be reported to it. The Security Council's record to date has potently demonstrated the international community's collective will on this issue. Kofi Annan has said:
"If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities".
But, as my right honourable friend said in another place on Monday, we must reserve our position on whether or not to have a second resolution in the event that the Security Council does not do so. As Resolution 1441 states, the
"Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
864
Saddam Hussein should be in no doubt of that. The Government stand foursquare behind Security Council Resolution 1441. We do not believe that it should have conditions imposed upon it by insisting on a second resolution before military action can be authorised. That is not what the resolution says and we are sticking with the resolution.
Let me go forward on the question of military action. No decision on military action has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government. There is no inevitability about military action. We are not seeking a confrontation with Iraq, although we shall not shirk it. The resolution provides a peaceful pathway for the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has it in his power to avoid military action and to start his county back on the road to a normal position in the international community. But we must remember that we have got this far in terms of Saddam's compliance only because our active diplomacy has been backed by the credible threat of the use of force. For that threat to remain credible, it is crucial that we make proper preparations.
Your Lordships would be right to criticise the Government if, at the same time as vigorously pursuing peaceful disarmament through the United Nations, we did not look at our preparedness for military action in the event that that process fails. So it is right that the Ministry of Defence should make prudent preparations to ensure that we have servicemen and servicewomen available in the right numbers and with the right skills and equipment. The more prepared we are, the greater the likelihood of full compliance by Saddam Hussein without the use of force. I am aware that these exceptional times put our Armed Forces under great pressures. But, as the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, said on 20th November:
"We will maintain a capability to respond to any future requirements falling on the armed forces".
Any decision by Her Majesty's Government to take military action will be put before Parliament as soon as is practicable. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said that he hopes that that would be before any military engagement—if it should come to that. But, as your Lordships will acknowledge, any decision must be taken with the safety of our Armed Forces uppermost in our minds.
In short, the choice is Saddam Hussein's. He can take the pathway to peace set out in the resolution or, by defying the international community's will, he can provoke military action. If he chooses the path of full co-operation, the way lies open to the suspension and the lifting of sanctions and the readmittance of Iraq to the family of nations. That is what he and his people have to gain through the Security Council resolution, and it is an enormous prize. But, if he chooses to frustrate the will of the international community, he will expose his people to the serious consequences cited in Resolution 1441. This position is backed by the European Union, by NATO and by the Arab League. All have made clear statements that Iraq must work with the international inspectors.
Some of your Lordships may be concerned about regime change. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to change the regime's behaviour with respect to weapons of mass destruction. If we can achieve that without using military force to bring about a change of regime, so much the better. But should the regime go as a result of action to remove Iraq's illegal weapons, the United Kingdom will be at the forefront of international efforts to provide a stable future for Iraq.
When we have discussed Iraq before, many of your Lordships have asked why we should seek to ensure compliance of UN resolutions in Iraq's case when resolutions in respect of other countries remain outstanding. As I have said before, we seek the implementation of all UNSCRs. We are working with other countries subject to SCRs to that end, particularly with respect to the dreadful and distressing conflict in the Middle East. Our sympathy goes out to all those caught up in yet another appalling tragedy in Kenya this morning.
Progress towards resolving that conflict and assuring the only workable solution—the creation of a viable Palestinian state, co-existing with an Israel confident of her security within her borders and within the region—is depressingly slow. But there are some positive developments. We now have full international support for the "two states" solution. The process of negotiation has been established under the quartet of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation. Let no one pretend that solutions will be quick or easy—but we are determined to continue to pursue them.
Just as it is high time that the Iraqi regime complied with its obligations concerning the safety and security of its region, it is high time too that it realised its responsibilities to its own people. Their suffering has been i mmcnse under a regime which murders, tortures and rapes political opponents, which has used poisonous gas to kill thousands of its own people, and which ignores the plight of its own sick and hungry.
Saddam Hussein accuses the international community of depriving his people of food and vital resources that they need to assure adequate medical treatment. But the truth is very different. The Oil for Food programme has been a lifeline for the Iraqi people, allowing not just food, but billions of pounds worth of goods, including hi-tech medical equipment, to be shipped to Iraq. Saddam's policy has been to frustrate this programme in an attempt to gain ill-deserved sympathy for his regime. The sad truth is that programmes such as the OFF programme would not be necessary at all if Saddam Hussein would only take the path mapped out for him towards lifting sanctions. The choice in this respect too is his.
Iraq's is, sadly, not the only bad regime in the world. But it is unique in combining so many seriously reprehensible qualities. For more than 10 years Iraq has defied the expressed will of the United Nations Security Council. Contrary to its international obligations, Iraq has been amassing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has shown that he is, indeed, prepared to use those weapons against his
866
neighbours and against his own people. Iraq has destabilised its region and, throughout, Saddam Hussein's regime has shown a despicable contempt for human rights.
Resolution 1441 gives Iraq one last chance to rehabilitate itself and to comply with its international obligations. The choice is Saddam Hussein's. He must take it or he must face the consequences. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on I raq.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
11.30 a.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, as I am sure are all your Lordships, for setting out with her usual clarity the scene in relation to the UN resolution and the Iraqi crisis. December 8th, the date of the crucial test of whether Saddam Hussein does, indeed, understand that this is, in the noble Baroness's words, his "final opportunity", is very near.
We have no substantive Motion before us, as there was in the other place on Monday, but the noble Baroness has again raised a number of vitally important questions. I believe that some aspects remain to be clarified. Noble Lords, with an accumulated experience in many of the areas we are discussing, can bring that experience to bear and help to improve the public debate and the public analysis.
I believe that, by now, most people agree that Saddam Hussein is an unprecedented danger—a uniquely dangerous threat both to Europe and the United States. Indeed, he is a global threat. I read a comment this morning from what was called a "Whitehall source"—I fear that it may have been the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—that Iraq is not a global threat but simply a regional threat. I believe that to be entirely wrong. It betrays a state of mind and a perspective which could be very misleading.
The reality is that we are now facing a globalised phenomenon of which the horrors in Kenya this morning are one more example. It is bad enough that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, which we hope will be identified shortly. But the point not always grasped is that when hostile states which dabble in terror conspire with non-state agents—terrorist networks linked to no particular state—the threat is increased not only marginally but exponentially. We are indeed dealing with a global problem: I believe that that Whitehall source is wrong.
I have been surprised all along by the lack of linkage between weapons of mass destruction and the global terrorist threat. In the United States, the State Department has no doubts at all about that. It believes, and I understand has evidence, that Iraq shelters several terrorist groups, including the Mujaheddin e Khalq and several Palestine-sponsored groups. As we know, Saddam finances the families of suicide martyrs, and it is the suicide bombing which most damages the fine and upright Palestinian cause. There is also evidence of extensive terrorist training at the Salman Pak facility.

867
Therefore, from the US perspective, Iraq and terrorism are the same issue and the moral case is the same—that against unspeakable evil. It is desirable that we emphasise that because it is important. War is dreadful. It is important that, in sending our citizens to war, we hack them with a moral case or cause.
As we have previously said on this side of the House, Resolution 1441 is welcome. The work done by our team at the UN and, indeed, by our Ministers was excellent and achieved a remarkable result. But then we come to the question addressed by the Foreign Secretary on Monday and again by the noble Baroness today concerning what is a material breach and who decides whether a material breach has occurred. Someone suggested to me that it was a little like an elephant—it is very difficult to describe in the abstract but easy to recognise when one sees it. Perhaps that is so.
Paragraph 4 of the resolution sets out a list of items, including false statements, omissions and failure to comply. Then there are other items which have already been debated, such as firing missiles at allied aeroplanes in the no-fly zone. Does that take effect as from last week? Does such an act constitute an attack on signatories to the resolution? It does, but is it serious? The noble Baroness mentioned talk of hugging the inspectors so that, when they turn up at the gate of a plant or chemical works, it appears that everyone knows they are coming. Again, as the noble Baroness said. Saddam Hussein is already in breach of a whole string of earlier UN resolutions.
Therefore, considering that this is the point which could trigger warfare. deaths and danger on a massive scale, we are still left with the question of how material is material. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that,
"the actions as a whole add up to something deliberate and more significant: something that shows Iraq's intention not to comply".—[Offical Report, Commons, 25/11/02, col. 52.]
As the noble Baroness said, it is very hard to pin that down in advance. Yet, as parliamentarians and as those who will at least approve, if not authorise, a major policy decision, we must be as clear as we can be about that matter. I believe that even more clarity is needed. I know that some of your Lordships will bring great wisdom to hear on that precise issue. Perhaps we can do better than "something deliberate" and "significant".
I was very glad to hear—as I was hoping to hear, having not seen evidence of it previously—the Government's strong endorsement, in the words of the noble Baroness, of the inspectors and of Dr Blix. He and his record have been subjected to much criticism. But our hopes rest heavily on his abilities and energies and on those of his team. Therefore, I believe that the endorsement was needed and was perhaps overdue. It was right that it came this morning.
Next, we have the question of whether the second resolution is necessary or simply desirable. Our view is similar to that of the Government—that it is not necessary or stipulated but that it probably is desirable
868
if such a thing can be secured. The difficulty is that China and Russia have made explicit their insistence on a second resolution. Perhaps, in that situation, we do not have much of a choice. I believe we must face the fact that there is a possible clash ahead between those who will insist on a second resolution if there is non-compliance and if force is to be used and those who simply want to get on with it and who argue that, under existing resolutions, they have international legal authority to do so.
Either way, I hope that Parliament will have another say—I was glad to hear that confirmed by the noble Baroness—although not, of course, to give prior authority or to tick the box and authorise a decision to launch ourselves into an expeditionary operation. I do not believe that any government could be bound in that way. It would be absurd to try to lay that down as a precise rule. But both Houses of Parliament certainly have an important role. I believe that the Prime Minister has been unfairly criticised for not paying much attention to Parliament these days. That cannot be right because I read somewhere that the Spectator made him "Parliamentarian of the Year". The Spectator cannot be wrong, can it? I shall leave those questions for your Lordships to tackle in due course, as I know the House will.
I want to talk about two aspects of the situation. The first, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, concerns our own preparedness as part of the vital credibility of the threat. Keeping credibility is the key to the whole matter. Secondly, I shall refer to the international response—that is, what NATO is doing and what help we are receiving from our European neighbours. If I have time, I also want to discuss how Turkey fits into the jigsaw. I consider that to be an immensely important part, if not the key.
The noble Baroness said that we must have—I use her words—"proper preparations". At the end of the debate my noble friend Lord Attlee will raise a number of points about equipment, readiness, preparation and the lessons which we did or did not learn from the big operation, Saif Sareea, in Oman. All those matters were raised in debate the other night. Certainly, answers will be needed, including the position as regards the Challenger 2 tanks and whether they are ready to go. There seems to be confusion as to whether the filter weaknesses discovered in Saif Sareea have been remedied, are about to be remedied or are in the process of being remedied.
Our troops are without equal. What they have accomplished even in the past stormy year is fantastic. We should not forget for a moment the role they have played and that of their families, the wives and children who support them. They have done marvellously. Can the Government reassure the House that they will release the funds necessary to see that our superb Armed Forces are properly equipped? Will they refute the worrying stories about the Treasury denying funds; about false economies; and about soldiers having their pay delayed, drawing income support and paying high-rate tax on their

869
modest income? Those stories are not good and need to be put down if there is any untruth in them or examined if they contain truth.
Yesterday the Chancellor's Statement mentioned £1 billion to help international security, if needed. It will be needed. This is an expensive business, particularly maintaining the credibility of a threat. I should like to hear, as would my noble friend, exactly how that £1 billion tits into the pattern. I assume that it is not just to correct the £1 billion underspend of last year; I believe that that has been corrected. But more will be needed. When we consider the extra sums discussed in the Senate and Congress for just this operation, we realise how even £1 billion, which sounds colossal, is a tiny sum compared to what is contemplated the other side of the water.
I turn to the role of NATO. The Prague meeting, which was very successful, produced a little noticed but milestone declaration. It read as follows:
"The NATO allies stand united in their commitment to take effective action to assist and support the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq".
That is an important statement. We are entitled to ask how that will be delivered. It has profound implications. First, starting at the less profound end, it presumably means that our neighbour and friend, Germany, is again on board. Germany stated recently that it wanted nothing to do with the Iraq expedition. Is that right? Are the German Government again refusing to help in Kuwait? I believe they have opened their airspace to the Americans, but that is the least they can do. It is hard to see how that fits in with all the NATO allies performing this high-sounding role.
Secondly, if that is now the role of NATO, it is a large transformation. Someone referred to the meeting in Prague as the transformation meeting. That puts NATO on a completely new path and one which we should certainly debate and analyse. I strongly welcome that. Thirdly, the statement that NATO will throw its weight into the Iraq situation, as it has strongly into the Afghan situation, reminds us that NATO must prepare for this kind of role in a more effective way. That is why we should examine positively the NATO response force, which I understand is to be a smaller, more powerful and much more effective way of shouldering Europe's share of the defence burden than previous initiatives. If the Iraq crisis is in any way to be prolonged I would hope that the proposal, which is very strong, has a part to play and enables NATO to fulfil its commitment.
The proposal is for a fully integrated force totalling around 20,000 but with a core of 5,000 soldiers and 50 bombers, with infantry, air power and naval strength all fused together and backed by the highest and latest American technology with no argument about whether or not it is NATO property. It seems to me that that is far the best way to forge a modernised, military. transatlantic security link, which responds in an era of terrorism. I think it was General Ralston who said the other day that,
"the key metric of war is no longer space; it is time".
870
That could apply at any moment in the Iraq case. We need small forces moving with lightning speed. That is the new necessity. That is what the NATO response force provides. It is odd that somehow we have hardly debated that matter in this House. Here is the real way to see burden-sharing working and NATO contributing to the Iraq crisis in a manner that some of the statements of individual NATO allies have not indicated. It is a pity that that kind of thinking and this kind of scheme were not in place earlier and that so much time has been lost.
I planned to say a word on Turkey, but I must be brief with so many noble Lords wishing to speak. I welcome the new regime in Turkey, the Justice and Development Party. That provides a great opportunity for a country which neighbours Iraq, with a powerful army, to be embraced in every possible way and certainly not frozen out from the EU as sonic of its leaders have suggested.
People ask for a post-Saddam vision concerning what will happen, what is the exit strategy, and so forth. Here is one I offer: an enlightened Turkey, as we see under an Islamist but not Jihadist government; a pluralist Iraq, if we can get there, perhaps not fully democratic in the western sense, but pluralist and no longer tyrannised; and perhaps a reforming Syria, which voted the right way in the UN, but that may be wishful thinking. If those countries begin to turn, I can think of no better context in which to make progress with the Israeli-Palestine settlement—the sore at the heart of the matter—and finally give back the Palestinians their land. I can think of no better way to help the quartet process and turn the spotlight on compliance with UN resolutions by both Israel and Palestine which, as the noble Baroness and many others have said, is the next priority.
That is my answer to those who ask, understandably, "Why don't we put the Israeli-Palestine problem first?" Dealing with an ugly and destabilising Iraq could also mean dealing with a whole culture of terror, which has gripped the Arab world and poisoned the Israeli-Palestine progress. Saddam's state terror interweaves inextricably with non-state terrorism. In the words of the US Under-Secretary of State last weekend, they are two faces of the same evil. No one wants war. In the words of Erasmus:
"Sweet is war to those who do not know it".
That is why I hope that in the coming weeks Saddam's twisted dream of Middle East domination and anti-free world terrorism will be utterly dismantled and that we will be utterly resolute in going about that task.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may take up one point he made. He referred to American evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism. Certainly, I would not want to be thought to be defending the despicable behaviour of Saddam Hussein or his regime. However, I remember making a point in the debate which immediately followed the publication of the Government's dossier that there was no evidence in that dossier of Saddam Hussein's links

871
with Al'Qaeda or any other form of international terrorism. Therefore, unless the noble Lord wants to take up the point, I hope that the Minister will tell the House what further evidence the Government have following the publication of their dossier.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will set out the view as understood by the Government. However, my understanding is that while the dossier said nothing about terrorism or 9/11, the State Department is firmly convinced that there is evidence of perhaps Al'Qaeda but certainly terrorist training and other groups which I mentioned on Iraqi soil. Those people are all in the terrorism business together.
11.49 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. It is particularly gratifying that so many Cross-Benchers have put down their names to speak because that will bring to bear a great deal of expertise from which we benefit greatly in this House and from which I think the country as a whole benefits.
The Minister said some extremely interesting things in the course of her remarks. I am sure that she will bear with me when I try to explore some of them in somewhat greater detail. The inspectors' first reports—I think the noble Baroness will agree—have been encouraging. Up to now they have been greeted politely and we understand that they have been given unrestricted access to the things that they want to see.
Reference was made earlier to the inspectors being bugged. My own hearing of "Today" suggested not that, but rather that the accommodation they were using had not yet been swept for bugs. It may be that the Minister can enlighten us later on that obviously important issue.
These are very early days. Resolution 1441 has laid down extremely detailed conditions. The first part of what I want to say relates to the difficulty of meeting those conditions, even if we can assume on both sides an honest intention to try to make the resolution work.
I begin by expressing my concern that arose from a remark made yesterday in a long interview on the "Today" programme with Jacques Baute, who is the head of the Iraq Action Team of the IAEA. I had the interview played back to me several times in order to ensure that I got it absolutely right. He said this about the resolution:
"There are timeframes which are incomprehensible … If everything goes well, if Iraq co-operates … a year should be a good timeframe".
He went on to say of laboratory analysis of any materials that might be discovered and that might be suspect,
"you don't do it in an hour".
He indicated that laboratory analysis by itself could take up to a month or more. So the timetable in the resolution is extremely difficult. Can the Minister tell
872
us how far that practical and logistical difficulty was taken into account in the setting of these extremely tight timetables.
It is right that Resolution 1441 should be couched as it is in precise and uncompromising terms. That must be correct in a situation where peace and war are at stake. In that context, I praise the Prime Minister, Sir Jeremy Greenstock and his United Nations team, the French negotiators and, not least, the American Secretary of State Colin Powell for the huge amount of work that was put in to getting that resolution through the Security Council with the unanimous support of its members. That was a remarkable achievement and praise should be given for it.
It is also important that the American President, who is so often the recipient of rather stupid abuse in this country and elsewhere, made it clear that he would listen to differing opinions—and there are plenty of those in his administration, to which I shall return—hut that the final decision was made by and rested with him. He gets great credit for framing a resolution and taking a channel, which was essentially that of the United Nations.
It is right and proper, too, to claim that this team of people—American, British, French and other, and including nations such as Syria which also contributed to the resolution and to its negotiation—have helped to recover the authority of the United Nations. That is a substantial achievement. But some parts of what I must say today relate to whether the United Nations can now hold on to the authority it has reacquired. That depends greatly on the inspectors being seen to undertake their work honestly and in a trustworthy way, and, frankly, without unacceptable interventions from any quarter with regard to that work.
It is not doubtful either that the threat of the use of force, sustained now over months, has been critical in getting Iraq to agree to the resolution. It is also absolutely right that Iraq must comply with its terms if it can. I believe that "if it can" is the absolutely crucial phrase.
The Minister encouraged noble Lords on these Benches by her remark that mild, minor or unintended omissions would not be regarded as a failure to comply. But I believe that it is very important to recognise what we are asking for. Resolution 1441 states that by 8th December, Iraq has to make,
"a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. ballistic missiles and other delivery systems".
Reports from Iraq suggest that Iraqi officials are stupefied by the list of sites expected to be put forward and publicised by them, which includes factories making mattresses, factories making slippers and many other such things. It is right and proper that Iraq should be asked to open these sites to inspection, but to do that by 8th December, which is almost upon us, raises large questions of how its response is to be interpreted.
One of the real concerns is to consider how the inspectors will report back on the failure or success of Iraq in that respect. A huge amount turns on those

873
interpretations and indeed one could say that the fate of the region depends on the way in which that is dealt with.
There is a certain catch 22 implicit in this part of the resolution. If Iraq declares illegal sites, as all of us hope it will, that itself constitutes a new breach of Iraq's commitment to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. If, on the other hand, it does not declare them, then the assumption may well be that it has not declared them because it is trying to conceal them. It is very difficult to see how one can guarantee that nothing has been concealed if the inspectors themselves say that it will take up to a year to complete a full inspection of Iraq.
I must ask the Minister a further question. If the inspectors look at a sample of sites and are satisfied, will that constitute sufficient guarantee that Iraq is trying to comply with the terms of the resolution? The trustworthiness and honesty of the inspectors is absolutely vital in this context. I quote a remark made yesterday by the Syrian information Minister on behalf of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He said:
"Syria hopes that the resolution will be observed honestly, and that … aggression be averted".
A country such as Syria will depend entirely on whether it believes that the interpretation of a resolution is honest and fair. That is as important as the attitude of the western countries to whether it is thorough and complete. Both criteria must be met. They are by no means easy to meet.
It would be less than honest if we did not indicate that one of the reasons for concern about the whole process of the resolution and the upholding of the resolution flows from what was raised in another place earlier this week—the real concatenation of voices out of Washington which do not say the same thing. One has to say that the existence of very different voices in Washington is one reason for the real apprehension about whether the resolution will be able to succeed. I shall quote one or two of those different voices. In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last August the vice-president Dick Cheney said:
"A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow 'back in his box'".
A further example comes from the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. In answer to a caller on a recent phone-in programme in the United States, who asked what would happen if no weapons of mass destruction were found by United Nations weapons inspectors inside Iraq, Mr Rumsfeld said:
"What it would prove would be that the inspection process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis".
In other words, in the eyes of the Secretary of Defense, it is impossible to prove one's compliance.
I have said before that one great strength of the American position is that, at the end of the day, the President makes the decisions, and he has shown a refreshing willingness to listen to a whole range of opinion. But we cannot simply slide over the fact that many members of the United Nations Security
874
Council, many of our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, many members of the Arab League and many countries in Europe have heard those discordant voices and are open to questioning the precise motivation of the United States.
Only yesterday, Richard Perle stated:
"I am very troubled at the idea that the United Nations is the sole legitimising institution when it comes to the use of force … Why is the United Nations a greater source of legitimacy than NATO?"
The answer is clear: NATO is an important alliance, but it does not represent the opinion of huge areas of the world. For all its weaknesses, the United Nations is the one and only body that has the right to speak for world as a whole.
It is important to say that those discordant voices have sown great concern and worry among many people in this House, in another place and much more widely among America's allies. We must recognise that there is a strong opinion that does not allow for the possibility of a peaceful outcome in Iraq.
What has happened so far has helped to restore the authority of the United Nations. It is crucial that the organisation and the Security Council are firm about Iraq—I entirely agree with the Minister on that—but they must also be seen to be absolutely fair and objective in how they define how far Resolution 1441 has been carried out by Iraq. That is crucial to maintain the support of moderate Arab nations, countries such as Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states, for a moderate Arab attitude towards terrorism and what is happening in the world.
Finally, I turn to a question that profoundly troubles me: what is sometimes called the aftermath. Many of us passionately want the resolution to succeed because we recognise how high would be the cost of war. According to the International Institute of Strategic Affairs in an article published this month in its journal, Survival, the most moderate estimate of casualties is about 10,000 Iraqi military, 10,000 Iraqi civilians, with possible casualties far beyond that. Caritas, the international Christian aid organisation, puts the estimated figure much higher, pointing out that 14 million Iraqis are today dependent on food aid—two-thirds of the country's population—and that a major disruption of supplies, which will inevitably follow from a war sustained for more than a week or so, will put all those lives at risk.
The price is terribly high, but does not end there, because we all know that there may be repercussions on the whole of the Middle East and on the attitudes of moderate Arab nations and their populations. There is always the danger that, far from suppressing terrorism, we will encourage a new wave of terrorism, unless—I repeat—our actions are seen to be absolutely fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to Turkey and its support for the coalition. I agree that Turkey's new Government are in many ways encouraging, but she has let it be known that if there is a war on Iraq, she would expect to move quickly into northern Iraq—the so-called no-fly zone—to ensure that there can be

875
no question of Kurds from that area entering Turkey in an attempt to establish a separate Kurdish state. The break-up of Iraq is a real concern.
There is little evidence of co-operation between the United States and this country about what may happen to a future Iraqi government following a war. The United States has tended to keep everyone else at arms' length. I cannot easily accept assurances on that point because, like some of my colleagues, I have attended several recent seminars with senior American officials at which it was made plain that they have a policy for the new administration in Iraq that is not multilateral. Perhaps that does not matter, but if we consider the sad story of Afghanistan, which was to be the model for the creation of new democracies and orderly states, we can only conclude that there is a long way to go, because so far, it is a story of reversion to warlords, violence and disorder outside Kabul, with little sign that the international community is sufficiently concerned to provide the necessary money and forces to ensure order in that country.
I end with a reference to Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian position simply lumbers from one act of retaliation and revenge to the next. Both sides are deeply convinced of the morality of their position, but that does not help to bring about any kind of peace. There are many illusions that a war in Iraq will somehow suddenly solve the Middle Eastern problem. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. on that point. That is a dangerous illusion held in Washington for which there is little evidence, and to which I am glad to say that even the US Secretary of State and his department give no credence.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope that you will forgive me if I croak a little at you this morning, because I am recovering from a heavy cold.
When I was Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House, I learnt early on that one should never rely on reports either of a resolution or a council meeting, one should read the documents. In this case it is particularly important, when we are considering the effect and implications of a Security Council resolution, that we read what it says.
I echo the tributes paid to the diplomatic effort that went into the framing of the resolution. I am deeply grateful that it was passed by unanimity in the Security Council. It is worth recording which countries voted for it. Apart from the Permanent Five, they included Syria, Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius. Whatever one thinks of the resolution, a fair spread of world opinion was mobilised behind it in the Security Council.
I shall not read the whole resolution because the document is available, but I shall draw the House's attention to certain parts of it. The preamble is as strong a preamble as I have ever seen in a United Nations resolution. Paragraph after paragraph is condemnatory of the behaviour of the Iraqi
876
Government. The resolution firmly states that the UN is acting under chapter 7 of the charter, which means that it is one of the most important steps that the Security Council can take. The decisions that it makes are extremely important, and it is appropriate that we should be clear about what the Security Council decided.
First, the Security Council decided that,
"Iraq has been and remains, in material breach of its obligations under the relevant resolutions".
They are decisions, not requests. Secondly, the council decided:
"while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
It decided to set up,
"an enhanced inspection regime".
Then, there are details of the regime. The resolution says that the Security Council has decided that,
"false statements or omissions in the declarations … shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and"—
your Lordships should note the following words—
"will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 below".
Paragraph 5 demands that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have,
"immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access".
The central part of the resolution is about what will happen, if there are material breaches. Paragraph 11 directs,
"the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities".
Paragraph 12 states that the Security Council has decided to convene immediately,
"upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
Finally, paragraph 13 recalls:
"in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
That is the international framework, if I can call it that, within which all the events relating to Iraq must be judged and must take place. Now that we have the resolution, the argument is about what it means. It is important to consider what individual countries seemed to think that it meant. Mr John Negroponte, the United States' ambassador to the United Nations said that the resolution contained no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with the use of force. He said that the procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution and that, one way or another, Iraq would be disarmed, if the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation.
He also said that the resolution did not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself—I note the word "itself'—against the threat posed by that country. I totally accept that; it is within the terms of the charter. However, he went on to say that the resolution did not constrain any member state from

877
acting to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security. Is it seriously being suggested that a country can do that when the rest of the Security Council does not want it? In other words, is it seriously being suggested that one country, however large or powerful—indeed, perhaps, however well intentioned—can take upon itself the obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions for the enforcement of which the rest of the Security Council does not, at that stage, see any necessity?
I am happy to say that Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador, avoided that morass and said that there was no automaticity in the resolution. He said that, if there were a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the council for discussion. He expected the council then to meet its responsibilities.
The French ambassador said that if the inspection authorities reported to the council that Iraq had not complied with its obligations, the council would meet immediately and decide on a course of action. France welcomed the lack of automaticity in the final resolution. The same thing was said by other countries. The Mexican ambassador said that those who advocated the automatic recourse to the use of force had agreed to offer Iraq a final chance and that Iraq was now obliged to fully comply with its international obligations. He said that the resolution had eliminated automaticity in the use of force as a result of a material breach, and he welcomed the acceptance of the two-stage approach. The Irish ambassador said that the resolution provided for a clear, sequential process for Iraq's compliance. The Russian ambassador emphasised that the resolution did not contain any provision for the automatic use of force The Bulgarian ambassador said much the same.
The most extraordinary vote on the council, in some ways, was that cast by Syria. I did not think that the Syrian Government would be prepared to support the resolution, and it is important that we look to see why they did. The Syrian ambassador said that Syria had voted for the resolution in order to achieve unanimity in the council and because of its commitment to the UN charter and international law, be it in the case of Iraq or of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian cause. His country voted in favour after having received from the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not he used as a pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for automaticity. I do not need to refer to the views of the rest of the Security Council; they expressed themselves in like terms.
The difficulty is that we must now construe the resolution in circumstances that are, as yet, unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. The resolution and the terms of its acceptance would make it difficult to argue that there was no need for a second resolution. The tenor of the resolution and the debate on it pointed in the direction of having a second decision by the Security Council before force was used. The firm way in which automaticity was excluded means that we go back to the provisions of the charter. We must examine
878
the charter and decide whether, in the circumstances, chapter 7 of the charter should be used. I can think of no case in which there was unilateral action by a country to enforce a chapter 7 determination without, at least, the acquiescence of the Security Council.
I understand that governments like to preserve their freedom of action, but it would be difficult to justify unilateral action with regard to law or political reality. Will the United States really go it alone, not just without Security Council approval but, possibly, in the face of Security Council opposition? Once it has met to consider a report from the inspectors of what is alleged to be a material breach, the council is bound to express an opinion. I have no doubt that that opinion will, at some stage, emerge in the form of a proposed resolution. I suppose that, in those circumstances, the United States would be prepared to use the veto. If the United States does so, must we follow it? We would be in an almost impossible situation, caught between a rock and a hard place. We could have to veto a resolution. More importantly, we would be supporting .action that, prima facie, at any rate, was legally doubtful.
If there is urgency such that it is essential that military intervention take place, where is the evidence? I have not seen it. I understand the restraints imposed by the delicacy of the process of gathering intelligence, but we cannot go to war on the basis of a nod and a wink. The United States and the United Kingdom were two of the nations that were most active in promoting the United Nations after the Second World War. To put it mildly, it would be sad, if we were to be party to undermining the United Nations to the point that its continued effectiveness was put in doubt.
I am an unashamed multilateralist, as I have been all my life. Even allowing for all the problems, it is messier, it is more difficult to control, there are more countries to take on board and so on. But the outcome, if successful, will be infinitely greater than a unilateral approach. If nations act in concert rather than individually, the chances of resolving those problems will be increased, not diminished. It is that doctrine that I am afraid will perhaps be put in doubt if a certain interpretation of this resolution is adopted.
12.20 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in a bipartisan policy on croaking. I apologise to your Lordships if I am not entirely audible.
The noble Lord referred to the United Nations Resolution 1441 and, with his considerable experience of the United Nations, said that it was as condemnatory as any resolution that he could recall. As we all know, the explanation for that lies in the first paragraph of the resolution, which sets out all the United Nations previous resolutions that have been studiously ignored over all these years. I was somewhat involved in the very first, 687, which set out the absolute conditions of the ceasefire when the real threat of military force and the continuance of military

879
force threatened Saddam Hussein, which he then accepted and, of course, has failed to comply with, and the succession of resolutions listed thereafter.
I therefore recognise and welcome the achievement of the Government; and I refer to the Government in totality because it is an example of British diplomatic capability, led by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary playing a very significant role in the achievement of this remarkable outcome, with, to the surprise of many, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the inclusion of Syria and all the other countries of the United Nations representing their various areas of the world. It was also good to see the subsequent support of the Arab League for the need for action by Iraq.
I do not believe that anyone would suggest that the situation has now become any easier or that the world has become a safer place since the failure to achieve those earlier resolutions. We awoke this morning to the announcement of further terrorist outrages in Kenya—I apologise for the old-fashioned pronunciation—where I once served. With the terrorist attack in Bali, the fragility of the situation in Afghanistan, the obvious determination of Al'Qaeda to pursue its activities wherever it may, the recent warnings of threats to our own country and the possible arrest of those alleged to be involved in serious terrorist attacks in this country, we know that we face a serious terrorist threat.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Wright that, whether or not there is the closest evidence of total identification, we should not leave one country, as unattractive in its approach to other countries and other peoples as Iraq, in some sense impregnable, which could then subsequently become a base. The world is a more dangerous place. I have had some involvement myself in trying to combat terrorism in its various forms, but I have never had to combat the kind of terrorism that involves suicide bombers or organisations that care not how many people they kill and whose objective is that the greater the outrage, the more effective and successful they will regard their activity.
It is a new threat. My noble friend Lord Howell made that point very clearly. The allying of that threat and the completely different mind set that now exists in the world of terrorism, with the capability to ally it to weapons of mass destruction that are not necessarily secure, with no obvious linkage to the source from which they came but for which they may be made available, poses a challenge to the civilised world on a scale that we have not so far had to face and which, I accept, underpins much of the resolution of the United States and of Her Majesty's Government at present to try to make people realise that we face a quite different scale of threat.
So we face this resolution, and I have no hesitation in picking up the words that have been quoted: "This is the final opportunity". Those are the words of the resolution. There must be an absolute insistence on total compliance. There must be absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein is under no illusion whatever
880
that a failure to observe that total compliance will lead to military action. Anyone who says, "We shall have to think about it" or "I am not quite sure" or "We shall have to deliberate on it later" will encourage Saddam Hussein to believe that he may be able to get off the hook. It will be a very serious decision. It has not yet been taken. I accept the Government's position on that, and we shall need to think about it, but to suggest at this stage that we are not sure what to do would be the biggest failure at the present time.
We are debating a resolution that is already in operation. Noble Lords will have read the reports of the first day of the inspectors' work. Anyone who has had a chance to speak to the inspectors, as I have previously in Kuwait at one of their bases in the early days, will know the difficulties that they face. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, suggested, I think with tongue in cheek, that someone may be bugging the inspectors. To anyone who would care to have a bet with me on that, I would say that it is the easiest money you could possibly make. The Iraqis bug everyone. I was in Baghdad on an innocent trade mission. It is in the nature of the Iraqi government and the secret police to operate in that way. The difficulty for the inspectors is that one of the requirements contained in Mr Blix's letter is that the Iraqis are responsible for the security of the inspectors as they travel around. It therefore comes as no surprise that six United Nations cars were followed by 15 Iraqi police cars and other government officials roaring around the streets of Baghdad, all part of the same convoy. The difficulties of their role cannot be underestimated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, discussed all the problems and asked, "How can we be sure?" The reality is that we cannot be sure about this inspection. Whether it takes a month, six months or a year, the best that we can hope for is that they find no evidence. They cannot possibly say more. The Iraqis are masters of deception and concealment. All that they can possibly return with is a statement that they have found no evidence.
The first crunch will come much sooner than a year from now. The first crunch will come on 8th December, the date by which Iraq has to make a full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes of weapons of mass destruction. I do not know what the Iraqis will say. Will they say, "We have none"? Of course, everyone knows that that is completely untrue. They certainly had them, as evidenced by the 20,000 dead bodies that lay in the Fao Peninsula. The use of chemical weapons was a crucial element in the defence strategy of Saddam Hussein in relation to Halabja. When the offensive was launched on the Fao Peninsula, the Iraqis resisted the numerical superiority of the Iranians by the use of nerve agents and mustard gas, and 20,000 Iranians paid the price of that.
The Iraqis said that it was not an accident but a vital element in the protection of Iraq and its survival in the Iran-Iraq war. I do not intend to develop this point, but I have seen it reported and widely quoted by Iraqis that they positively believe that the reason why in the Gulf War we did not continue from the liberation of

881
Kuwait to advance on Baghdad was that we knew that they would then use the chemical weapons that they had and they believed that their possession of chemical weapons saved them on that occasion. This is not some imaginary existence or a fantasy of some maverick intelligence organisation. The existence was real.
On 8th December, therefore, in accordance with the resolution, they will have to say what the programme was, whether it has stopped and what has happened to all the materials. We did not find them all in the previous inspections. We found some, but we certainly did not discover them all.
The current position is that out of that is highly likely to come a material breach. What happens then? There is to be a United Nations Security Council discussion. I do not believe that anyone will carry much credence if more sanctions are suggested. The no-fly zone, which I helped to institute in 1991, has reached the end of its life. It certainly provided protection to the Kurds and to an extent the Marsh Arabs, but it has provided no greater sanction than that. It is clear that there must be resolute action.
My position is that it would be better if that were done with the full support of the United Nations. However, if the United Nations continues to be paralysed, as it has been for the past 11 years, if it fails to implement the resolutions it has imposed, and facing the scale of threat that the world and particularly this country now faces, it may be necessary to act outside the agreement of the United Nations but with the maximum support we can obtain.
In that context, the United States has enormous power, but it would be disastrous if the Americans were to act on their own. While I worry considerably about our current capability and the quality of some of our equipment—I shall not raise that at this moment—we none the less have a real contribution to make with our background and experience particularly in that part of the world in which the UK has been involved for so many decades. I therefore hope that we will be prepared to play our part and I support the Government's approach to the parliamentary process.
Finally, in the case of the Gulf War a succession of Motions supported the deployment of our forces and the giving of the sternest possible warning to Saddam Hussein to evacuate Kuwait and to cease his aggression, warning him of the consequences. When subsequently it was necessary to take action, we came to the House of Commons and to this House as soon as possible in order to obtain a substantive Motion. I believe that that is the right action to take.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, a hundred years ago in Chicago, Theodore Roosevelt repeated the, even then, old adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Today's President of the United States is well equipped to follow that advice.
Sound advice it is, too, if one is seeking to influence the thoughts and reactions of a potential opponent. Surely he will measure the strength of your resolve by the size of your stick rather than the volume of your rhetoric. Words will not faze him; actions will.
882
The spoken volumes of threats, often at high decibel levels, have nevertheless been the more dominant features of recent weeks, even months, as the Iraqi crisis has unfolded. They started with assertions of the need for regime change, of the determination to ensure disarmament and the removal of all weapons of mass destruction. I doubt that much of all this verbiage has had Saddam quaking in his shoes.
What will have influenced him—at least, assuming that he thinks rationally and I think that we must—is the scale and achievement of those western forces that he has seen in operation elsewhere in the world. After a hesitant start, the efforts in the Balkans proved a success. Those in Afghanistan demonstrated the global reach that can now be achieved by air and naval forces in relatively short time frames.
He will be aware of the importance of mounting bases for offensive action, and knows that there are a number of neighbours and near-neighbours to Iraq who are prepared to co-operate, or positively consider co-operation, with his enemy. He will recall the overwhelming military nature of Desert Storm, though he may console himself that it took several months of logistic and other efforts to bring ground forces to bear.
But that was a decade ago. What we hear little about, but he will be very familiar with it, is the constant patrolling of the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq. The efforts of the RAF and other air forces involved in this so-called humanitarian task have varied over the years since they started soon after the end of the Gulf conflict. A few general figures will nevertheless give a measure of this protracted commitment for the RAF. Its extent may come as a surprise.
Flying from bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the south and from Turkey in the north, over 24,000 RAF missions have been mounted since these operations started a decade ago. The RAF's weapons and defensive aids have greatly improved since Desert Storm. ASRAAMS on the Tornado F3s are now the best air-to-air missile in the world. Air-to-ground weapons, like the enhanced Paveway, have reliability and accuracy of a far greater degree than ever before.
The aircrew who fly these missions are not out on some training exercise. Often Iraqi air defences will catch them with their radar and try to shoot them down. Coalition aircraft were fired on 120 times recently in one month alone. In my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in 1991, following the end of the Gulf conflict, I drew attention to the courage and determination that aircrews showed then when they flew into danger. I also referred to the bravery of our special forces and those in minesweepers. I said then that I counted it a privilege,
"to have been associated with the activity of such brave people who display that very special kind of individual courage: to outface danger and conquer fear on their own".—[Official Report, 4/11/91: col. 36.]

883
It requires a special form of bravery and grit to fly today's missions not once or twice but many, many times. More than 30 RAF crews patrolling Iraqi no-fly zones have done it over 100 times; the highest scorer's next mission will be his 160th.
Not all of those now involved are seasoned campaigners with years of squadron experience under their belt and many hours in their logbooks. First tourists are fully committed too. Any one of them may have to fire their weapons in self-defence against the Iraqis. We can all be thankful that, thus far, no fatality or shooting down of one of our aircraft has occurred. But each day that goes by shortens the odds.
I have no doubt that these young men, and now women, deserve to be rewarded for their bravery and determination in the face of imminent danger. There seems to be some reluctance to recognise, with anything more than the General Service Medal, these young people who risk their lives to uphold the policies of Her Majesty's Government and the good name of the Royal Air Force. I hope that we shall hear that many of them are to be honoured. It would do much for morale, even perhaps as good a retention measure as a bounty cheque in the bank. Such bravery and determination deserve recognition.
If the present rules for awards do not cover such courage and commitment, then the rules are wrong. They need to be changed to reflect that these flights are missions into real danger. I recall from my discussions with Sir Arthur Harris his disgust and dismay that there was no special campaign medal for those who flew bombing missions in World War II.
I hope that we do not repeat this short-sighted and niggardly approach. We should not have to wait for one of our aircraft to be shot down to recognise that there is real danger in every mission. I hope that the Minister, whom I have alerted to my concerns, will be able to say that many such honours will be forthcoming. They are certainly well deserved.
Meanwhile, Saddam, in spite of Resolution 1441, has not stopped attempts to shoot down those who patrol these no-fly zones. But I take some comfort from the fact that Saddam must realise that his military potential to deal with even greater air operations in his airspace will not be good. In 10 years he has not had one success. All credit to our crews for that Iraqi duck. But he cannot expect that his forces will greatly interfere with air attacks on key targets in Iraq, let alone stop them being damaged and destroyed.
He is in a good position to appreciate that, for all the western rhetoric—which he might he tempted to ignore or dismiss—the big stick is for real. He will not want to give the West the excuse, that some in Washington would like, to wage air war upon his country. So I hope that we shall continue to demonstrate that there is the real potential to destroy him and that it is not left only to the megaphone pronouncements of governments, repeated by the world's media, to tell him so. The rest of the world will be listening too and can be scared by what it hears.
884
More so than Saddam, who will only be likely to co-operate if the will to use the stick is quietly made known to him by both word and deed.
The crews who fly over Iraq deserve our fullest support and admiration. It is they as much as anyone who are helping to get the right messages to Baghdad. If this is achieved, a successful outcome, without major conflict, could still be within our grasp and that of the United Nations and Resolution 1441.
We must be prepared not only for conflict but be clear about the post-hostilities situation. I hope that the Minister can give assurance that this aspect of planning is not being neglected.
12.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is good that your Lordships' House has the opportunity of debating the situation in Iraq at this significant stage in developments.
The General Synod of the Church of England was meeting at much the same time as the Security Council of the United Nations was formulating Resolution 1441. There was general recognition during the Synod's debate that the Government were to be congratulated on playing such a significant part in ensuring that the United Nations was the body driving the negotiations seeking to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. In particular, it was recognised that the Prime Minister had been very instrumental in persuading the United States, at least at this stage, to work with and through the UN rather than taking unilateral action.
The Synod endorsed the House of Bishops' submission that the crucial first step in disarming Iraq was to obtain the unfettered and unhindered access of UN weapons inspectors to facilitate the identification and destruction of any of these terror weapons. Yesterday in Iraq the weapon inspectors began their work.
The equivalent debate in the other place took place on Monday, before it was known what reception the inspectors would receive. Speakers there reflected upon what would happen if the Iraqi Government did not co-operate in the process of inspection; who would report this back to the Security Council and how it would be done; and what steps the Security Council might then take to ensure compliance with Resolution 1441.
Yesterday, both teams of inspectors reported every co-operation from the Iraqis as they began their work. My concern today is not the unco-operation of the Iraqi regime with the UN inspectors but its super cooperation and what may lie behind it.
It could be that the Iraqi Government have nothing to hide; that the dossier of information which Her Majesty's Government placed before your Lordships' House during an earlier debate was misplaced or mistaken; that there are no weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq. That would be a marvellous outcome to the inspection process for the world would then be a much safer place.

885
But a second reason for yesterday's super cooperation of the Iraqi regime could be that the weapons of mass destruction are so carefully squirreled away that the Iraqis are confident that they will remain hidden from the prying eyes of the UN inspectors, particularly if those eyes can be directed in a different direction.
When the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I paid a humanitarian fact-finding visit to Baghdad following the Gulf War, we were met with just such super cooperation. Every day and every evening our minder took us wherever we wanted to go. Our visits were always well expected and well prepared for. It was all very frustrating. It was only when we noted that our minder assumed that we and he would take a rest every afternoon that we began to make any progress, by slipping out of our hotel rooms during our minder's siesta and visiting independent agencies and contacts, where we saw a very different picture and heard very different voices describing life in that unhappy country. Somehow the UN inspectors must develop similar plans, away from prying eyes and ears and super co-operative minders.
But there could be a third reason for the super cooperation with the inspectors. We might find a clue to this in the Bible in St Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 12, which states:
"If our enemy hungers, feed them. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. For by so doing you will heap burning coals upon their heads".
Or, in this case, if the UN inspectors want to go somewhere, take them everywhere they want to go and more. Exhaust them and their limited resources with super co-operation. Take them to every corner of the country until they are overwhelmed with activity.
This Pauline doctrine of super co-operation might then be taken a stage further. Resolution 1441, as we have heard, places upon the Iraqi Government the necessity of making a full and complete declaration of their entire weapons of mass destruction programme within 30 days-8th December. Questions were asked of the Government in the other place on Monday as to what would happen if the Iraqi regime failed to do this or simply replied that it had no such weapons. Would this be regarded as non-compliance with Resolution 1441? If so, what then? The noble Lord, Lord King, addressed this question earlier.
I should like to ask the Minister a rather different question. What will the UN do if there is super compliance and the Iraqis make a super declaration on day 30, saying something like this: "We do not have any weapons of mass destruction or ways of producing them. But we want to be co-operative and so we have listed every biological, chemical and mechanical facility we have, every research, development and production unit. The list for these is very long for there are thousands of such items, but we want to be cooperative"?
Of course, hidden away in such a list may well be items of real concern which might indeed be weapons of mass destruction, in embryo at least, but it could be extremely difficult to find them among the rest; it
886
would be like looking for 10 needles in 1,000 haystacks. Can the Minister indicate whether that kind of super co-operation would be regarded as noncompliance with Resolution 1441 and, if so, how the members of the Security Council who are less suspicious of the Iraqi regime than Her Majesty's Government might be persuaded of this?
I freely admit that this Pauline doctrine of super cooperation is pure speculation, but we are dealing with an intelligent, powerful and cunning regime which has survived and prospered thus far by being able to turn even adverse situations to its own advantage. If the UN inspectors can be encouraged to engage in a frantic round of activity until the summer months, when military operations in the desert become more difficult, then the threat of military sanctions becomes less formidable. The frustrations and divisions of the UN Security Council could become immense, with the consequent danger of the United States, and possibly Britain, taking unilateral action, with very serious consequences for us internationally and possibly within Britain.
In Dukas's Sorcerer's Apprentice, a magician's young apprentice tries to lighten his workload by experimenting with magic spells that he has seen his master use. When the boy is alone, lie commands a broom to go to the well to fetch water for the house. The broom obliges all too well, and the apprentice finds that he does not know how to command the broom to stop when the basin begins to overflow, soon filling the room with water, and before long the boy is near to drowning.
Resolution 1441 requires the UN inspectors to update the Security Council within 60 days of resuming inspections and, thereafter, every 60 days. In my scenario of super co-operation, where the inspectors risk drowning in activity and information. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is an end point to the flood; or do successive 60 days stretch out long into the future?
I have concentrated very much on the short-term here and now situation, but I should also like to place on record that in the General Synod's debate we were also very conscious of the difficult issues underlying the present tensions in Iraq and elsewhere, particularly the Israeli/Palestinian convulsions. This is even more relevant following this morning's disturbing news from Kenya of the attempted missile attack on an airliner carrying Israeli passengers. The Synod resolution supported and encouraged the Prime Minister in his efforts to press for a new international conference to revitalise the Middle East peace process based on the twin principles of a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. This might not be in the forefront of our minds today as the UN inspectors go about their work in Iraq, but there will be no abiding peace until that issue too has been tackled and solved.
12.51 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in saying that the fact that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was carried

887
unanimously is an amazing achievement for the British and American diplomats and politicians involved, who certainly deserve our congratulations.
It is an excellent resolution which confronts and deals with two problems. First, how to pin down the Saddam regime to co-operate with the UN inspectors in such a detailed way as would prevent the squirming manoeuvres which this regime had used to evade detection by previous UN inspection teams. Some have queried the specifics into which paragraph 5 goes, but the detailed points in paragraph 5 are all necessary. As one reads it, one recognises again and again precise incidents and tactics which occurred in the past and which are being specifically blocked in the wording of this resolution.
In particular, some have questioned the provision that,
"Unmovic and IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and at the sole discretion of Unmovic and IAEA such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government".
It is difficult to over-estimate the chilling efficiency and scope of the terror machine which keeps the Saddam regime in power. It is well documented that whole families are wiped out if a member is suspected of disaffection for the regime. Some of your Lordships will have seen the powerful "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 on 17th November which investigated reports of public beheadings of women by men with faces and bodies swathed in black known as Uday's Fedayeen (controlled by Saddam's son, Uday). Officially any such executions are denied, but ordinary people, unaware of the official denial, confirmed the executions on camera, explaining rather disingenuously that these women were executed only because they were prostitutes and it was part of a campaign supposed to reinforce the principles of Islam.
In fact, there is evidence that among the women executed were a doctor, a teacher and an ordinary mother, who had all fallen foul of the regime for real or imagined dissidence. No one who saw this programme will easily forget the eyewitness descriptions of some of the ghastly details of these executions—all carried out at carefully chosen times and places for maximum public effect. As the courageous investigative reporter said about one such event, it was the equivalent of choosing a busy time in Oxford Street. Carefully planned actions like that ensure maximum terror effect and surely justify the provisions in paragraph 5.
The second problem for the UN resolution was how to make the language so clear and unequivocal that even Saddam would recognise that this time the penalty for not co-operating with the UN inspectors will have serious consequences up to and including military action against him, and that he could not just play for time as he had done so often before. That is why it is right that a strict timetable is laid out in this resolution.
888
The 8th December is now a crucial date—as my noble friend Lady Symons made clear in her opening statement—by which, as laid down in paragraph 3, Iraq has to make a,
"currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles".
And paragraph 3 adds,
"as well as all other chemical, biological and nuclear programmes including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material".
Paragraph 4 states—as my noble friend Lord Richard quoted—that false statements or omissions in the declarations shall constitute a material breach of Iraq's obligation and will be reported to the Council.
It has been claimed that this is a resolution for war but, as I have said before, it is only that if Saddam makes it so. Saddam has agreed to go along with Resolution 1441 so there should be no way out of full compliance.
I should like to be optimistic about Iraq complying, but to be honest, that would be a triumph of hope over experience. The former UN inspector, Richard Butler, said a fortnight ago:
"I will predict Iraq will not simply comply, they will give a version of compliance".
I fear that he may well he correct. And he went on to say what I hope will not prove true, that when there is obfuscation or deviation from the requirements of the resolution, there would be disagreement in the Security Council on whether or not Iraq was in material breach.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord King, said about this. It is essential that Saddam is not allowed even to start to play that game, let alone win it. It is vital that this time the will of the UN to disarm this dreadful regime of its weapons of mass destruction prevails, and Resolution 1441 provides the necessary tool to achieve this.
12.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as a result of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 the sand in the hourglass of Saddam Hussein's defiance has almost trickled out. As we have heard, he has been presented with a stark choice: to give up his weapons of mass destruction voluntarily, for which he has made the Iraqi people pay so dearly in sanctions since 1991, or face the near certainty of military force and his political, if not physical demise. This is Iraq's final opportunity—and "final" must mean final. It is a case of disarm or face the consequences.
There is widespread consensus today that the subtler points of diplomatic nuances are wasted on Saddam Hussein. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said in this House two weeks ago: namely, that there was no point in trying to be "diplomatically subtle" with the Iraqi regime. As Kofi Annan has said,
"We have learned that sensitive diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed".

889
A strategy of diplomacy must be backed by the credible threat of the use of force. Without that credible threat, I doubt that we would have seen UN inspectors back in Iraq today.
We all want to avoid war. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, emphasised, if the UN weapons inspectors are given time to do their jobs, we may yet succeed in doing so. But in the brief time available, I intend to focus on what has been called the aftermath.
We know that Saddam Hussein did not use his chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War because he was striving to ensure the survival of his regime. In the event that war is waged to terminate Saddam Hussein's regime, if his removal is our ultimate war aim, there is less to stop him from pressing the WM D button. He will have little to lose, and the assumption must be that he may be prepared to use his weapons of mass destruction, and, it' he can, to light the touch paper for a full Middle Eastern conflagration. This is only one of the reasons why war against Iraq must be the very last resort, when all else—diplomatic and political initiatives—has failed.
However, if the threat of the use of force that underlies Resolution 1441 is to be credible—and as my noble friend Lord King said, it must be credible—it is right to consider the possibility, and the aims and goals, of military action. The UN resolution may not contain any hidden triggers, but, in its threat of serious consequences in the event of a material breach, it does contain a casus belli. Any war against Iraq must be a means to an end. It cannot be an end in itself. If Saddam Hussein is toppled, that is not an end in itself. If military action results in regime change, we cannot then pat ourselves on the back and say, "job done, pack up and go home". It is only the beginning.
On Monday, I asked the Minister whether she agreed that we must have full contingency plans, in the event that the use of force becomes necessary, and plans for the outcome and aftermath of any military action. I asked her whether she agreed that any decision to use force against Iraq must include a strategy for the long-term, post-war stability of Iraq and the region as a whole. I asked for assurances that Britain would not enter a conflict against Iraq without a clear, effective and pre-planned exit strategy.
I am troubled by the uncharacteristic lack of clarity in the Minister's answer. I wonder whether we have learned the lesson that we cannot have a strategy to enter a war—which may happen very soon—unless we have a strategy to exit one. The lack of an effective, pre-planned exit strategy risks a long military campaign followed by continued political and military entanglement. If this should prove to be the case, the eddying politics of the Middle East may make a military campaign only the start of our problems. Saddam Hussein cannot be toppled without a replacement in view; otherwise there will be a dangerous power vacuum. But a government in Iraq that is perceived as the West's puppet, any kind of client regime or an American protectorate will do nothing to bring stability to an already politically highly volatile region. To quote the noble Baroness:
890
"These will not be actions seen to be absolutely fair".
It would be highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, as would we, because it would risk presenting terrorist organisations with a gift—the proof of their claim that the US is illegitimately controlling their part of the world. It is just that propaganda that a terrorist organisation such as ATQaeda requires.
How do we address this? It is not just a question of the United Kingdom standing shoulder to shoulder with America. The involvement of Arab countries is essential as it was in the Gulf War coalition. If we take military action, it must be with the backing of the people who live in the region and whose governments support our aims and objectives. So I ask the Minister what implications he believes military action against Iraq would have for the stability of the Middle Eastern region as a whole, in the event that the use of force is triggered as a result of non-compliance by Iraq with Resolution 1441.
There is no doubt that many Arab countries see the problem of Israel and Palestine as inextricably linked to that of Saddam Hussein. There must he progress on one if there is to be progress on the other.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that in the event of military action the Government will set out their plans for a post-Saddam Iraq. Our goal should be a unified, single country at peace with itself and with its neighbours. As your Lordships are all too well aware, the internal opposition to Saddam Hussein is weak, ineffective and hopelessly divided. If Saddam Hussein lost power, it is possible that Iraq would fragment into entities controlled by the Kurds in the north, the Shia Muslims in the south and the Sunni Muslims in the centre. To many, the creation of a southern Iraqi state run by Iraq's majority Shia community would represent a victory for the influence of radical Iran. Turkey, Syria and Iran would also fear the rise of Kurdish nationalist and separatist movements. There are other reasons why Iraq as a country should not be allowed to fragment.
The American press has reported that the US Administration are considering a plan to occupy Iraq and install a US-led military government as a way of avoiding the country's chaotic disintegration. Yet there is little indication of the existence of a sensible, workable, long-term strategy for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq
The international community has a responsibility to assist the people of Iraq with economic aid and humanitarian assistance. This is vital if the Iraqi people are to rebuild successfully the internal infrastructure and the economy of their country. We will need to help to rebuild Iraq's economy and infrastructure after the ravages of more than a decade of sanctions and the "wasting of the treasures of Iraq in the hands of its leaders". This is a responsibility for the whole international community.
We have developed the dangerous habit of partitioning our roles, sometimes in the name of burden-sharing, sometimes in the name of expediency. There has been a tendency to say that the US has all the military might so it should shoulder the burden of

891
the military campaign while Britain, the European Union and whoever else is prepared to do so are better suited to sweeping up the broken glass afterwards and handling the post-war reconstruction. This will not work in the case of Iraq. In this situation, we must work together at every step, be it during a military campaign or in a post-war humanitarian and reconstruction scenario.
I have said before in this House that winning the peace is as important as winning the war. This applies equally to Afghanistan, and, if circumstances were to lead there, it also applies to Iraq. Yet, time and again, we fail to devote the same resources to resolution of the underlying causes of conflict as we do to diplomatic and military requirements. Beyond the CNN headline-making effect of waging and winning wars, the making and keeping of a permanent peace through the long, slow process of restoration of a country or a region, of the reconstruction of its towns, villages, businesses and communities, and of the revival of its spirit and its people is too often neglected.
As we tour the world and focus on Iraq, it is still a lesson I am not convinced we have learned, even in the wake of September 11th.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I begin by apologising to your Lordships, as I already have to the Minister, that, because of a long-standing engagement overseas late tonight, I shall probably not be present for the closing speeches.
Like others speaking in this debate, I welcome Security Council Resolution 1441. It helpfully tightens the screw on Saddam Hussein to compel him to disarm. Like other noble Lords, I also hope that Saddam will give a full accounting of his weapons of mass destruction, as well as the materials and facilities for manufacturing them, so the inspectors can find and destroy them and we will not have to go to war on Iraq.
But, my Lords, I am not holding my breath. Experience suggests that such hopes are likely to be vain. Saddam Hussein will hang on to his weapons of mass destruction so long as he believes he can deceive us and so long as he thinks he can rely on some UN members continuing, to want to stave off military action at all costs. It also seems all to likely, I fear, that he will be able to outsmart the inspectors on the ground.
The lessons about this that I draw from my personal experience of the Gulf War are that with hindsight we made a mistake by not insisting on Saddam's personal surrender and subsequent removal in 1991; that Iraq will never renounce weapons of mass destruction permanently, so long as Saddam and his associates remain in power—to believe otherwise is wishful thinking—and that half measures will never solve the problem; at best they will only defer it.
So I have very little doubt that force will have to be used, and probably sooner rather than later. That is the prospect to which I shall address my remarks. I shall make four points.
892
First, we should not be floppy about identifying what constitutes a material breach of the UN resolution. An untrue declaration by Saddam would be a material breach, to add to many earlier ones. It may be that we shall want to wait for an even more concrete breach before initiating military action, but let us call a spade a spade from the beginning.
Secondly, once a clear material breach is detected and exposed, there will be a great outcry demanding another Security Council resolution before force is used. Indeed, we have heard it already. However, as others have said, there is no legal requirement for that and there is no commitment to it in the earlier resolution; only to further discussion. President Bush has said clearly that such discussion cannot and must not jeopardise America's freedom of action. I hope Britain will stand with him on this rather than make a misguided attempt to appease opinion by actively canvassing and expressing a preference for a second resolution. That will only encourage Saddam to believe that he still has a chance of escaping the serious consequences that the Security Council resolution threatened. You cannot make and then remake decisions without losing credibility.
Of course, in an ideal world it would be desirable to have every member of the Security Council signed up to military action, but in the real world the chances are very slim. It is easy enough to predict here and now the course that a further Security Council discussion will take. After all, plainly several UN Security Council members voted for Resolution 1441 precisely because it did not threaten the use of force. Those countries that for years have been trying to help Saddam Hussein get off the hook of sanctions will temporise and argue for more time, for more evidence, for one more chance. To quote a renowned speech in another place, "No, no, no"—no more time; no more breaches; no more chances; and no vetoes.
Thirdly, what about the reaction of Muslim countries and their governments to the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein? There is a certain amount of hyperventilation on the subject, including in this House. The fact is that Saddam Hussein represents even more of a threat to his neighbours than to us. He invaded Kuwait. There was little doubt then that his ambition extended beyond that to the Saudi oil fields and even to those of the lower Gulf. The Saudi Government certainly thought so at the time. Saddam also holds the unchallenged world record for slaughtering his fellow Muslims—over 1 million in the Iran-Iraq war. Whatever Arab governments feel it necessary to say publicly now, I cannot believe that most of them will not be mightily relieved to see him go, provided military action is swift and successful and does not involve Israel. That will do far more for their own security than appeasing the anger of the so-called Arab street—a threat that is often wheeled out, but which has constantly proved exaggerated.
The attitude of the Muslim world would certainly be improved if the United States would galvanise itself to rekindle negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. All that needs to be said was said in President Bush's excellent speech last June,

893
spelling out the elements of a settlement. Of course a full-blown solution cannot be delivered just like that, but a start needs to be made and made now. It is worth recalling that in the previous Gulf War, President Bush 41 promised a peace conference as soon as the task of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait was completed.
Lastly, as we reflect on the further steps at the United Nations, let us remember that disarming Iraq will not be the end of the story. Beyond that there is the emerging risk of a nuclear-capable and terrorist-supporting Iran and there is North Korea's cynical admission after years of blatant lies that it is developing nuclear weapons—and, indeed, probably has them. There is no single strategy that can disarm North Korea and deter other rogue states that may be trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In the case of North Korea, there will need to be intense and co-ordinated pressure on the regime, not just from the United States, but from China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.
One thing is surely indisputable: swift, resolute and successful action to disarm Saddam Hussein will send an unmistakable signal to others with similar ambitions that their game is up.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Powell. Slightly to my surprise, I agreed with almost everything he said.
There are two issues. The first, which the noble Lord dealt with, is whether a war can or should be avoided. The second, not yet mentioned, is the overflow from the Iraq situation, actual and potential, into community relations in this country.
On the potential war, I echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that Saddam Hussein presents a uniquely dangerous threat and that there is a clear link between Iraq and terrorism, shown not least by his financing of the suicide bombers. The noble Lord did not mention that Saddam has also been reported many times as giving 25,000 dollars to the family of each suicide bomber. In other words, he encourages families to send their children not only to their own deaths, but to murder others. As a parent I find that difficult to understand—and even more so as a grandparent. The idea of somebody paying families to do that is revolting.
This man is a danger to us all. Clearly, none of us who has seen war or its aftermath wants it to be inflicted or imposed on anyone else. The question is what alternative there can be in this case. The alternative is for him to give up his weapons and to treat the inspectors with openness and respect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, they must be treated honestly, in a trustworthy way and without interference. I have no belief that he will do that. Some noble Lords may have heard the broadcast yesterday morning by the former head of the CIA who said that he has no doubt that Saddam Hussein will not behave in that way.
894
Iraq is a country the size of France. There will be 80 inspectors on the ground with their staff. We can imagine how little would he found in this country by 80 inspectors. They will certainly not find much in Iraq, where it is reported—again without contradiction—that Saddam Hussein has had a staff of literally thousands engaged for months in hiding away his weapons of destruction. He will have had no difficulty doing that: he is the dictator of a country of mountains, deserts and caves that are ideal for hiding any of these potential weapons. They are not weapons that those of us involved in wars in the past would have known. These are new biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
Thinking about this debate, I remembered with happiness a 90th birthday party for a very distinguished relative of mine. He is a doctor and businessman and is physically and mentally fit. After the celebration I asked him, "How do you do it? What is your secret? I would like to be like you at 90", "Oh, it's simple," he said. "Get it before it gets you". He has health checks. He was talking about his health and about dealing with personal problems before they kill you, which all of us can understand. But I am afraid that that is my view on Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. If we do not get him, he will get us; indeed, not only us, but our way of life, our world, and those about whom we care. As the noble Lord, Lord Powell, so eloquently pointed out, he will outsmart the inspectors.
We do not want war, but we do know what will happen. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber. He led British troops into Belsen after the war. I followed him a little while later while the war was still going on—
Lord Campbell of Croy: Yes, my Lords, it was three weeks before the end.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Lord knows the effect of appeasement on Europe in the past. We should all remember the dangers of allowing a vicious dictator not merely to be in power but to be in a position to impose his will, his dangers—and, indeed, death—upon others. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, there is a new scale and a new nature to the threat. Saddam Hussein must have an absolute certainty that failure to come clean will lead to swift, effective military action.
The other side of the problem is the overflow into other worlds, not least our own. I have in mind the suicide bomber about whom we heard this morning—the man who drove his car into an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya and blew himself up killing 10 other people in the process. There was also the threat today to an Israel aircraft in Kenya at about the same time; happily, the two missiles did not connect.
After 9/11 I remember talking to a senior security person who said that he would be very surprised if we did not have such an event in this country. Among the perfectly obvious targets is the one in which we work—

895
the Palace of Westminster. There is an overflow and a danger to us all that we should never underestimate. However, there is also an overflow into relations between communities that live in this country.
I am a member of the Jewish community, which, I know, is very happy to work with people in the Muslim community in this country—now numbering about 2 million. It is very important that we should not allow the overflow of problems in the Middle East, from whatever part, to enter the relations between our own communities, no matter what our differences may be. Those of us who remember the successful efforts of the Nazis in Britain before the war will have felt a deep sense of shock that they would win even one council seat last week.
As a Member of Parliament for part of Leicester, where we had, and have, many mixed communities, I remember that the National Front came within 56 votes of winning two seats in a council election in my patch in the early 1980s—an area of the city that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will remember well because he was with me at that time. We issued a pamphlet, which said:
"The National Front is a Nazi Front".
However underprivileged they may have been, it sunk into people's minds that they would not find any relief by supporting the National Front, or any other Nazi party. One of the fascists sued for libel, but subsequently dropped the suit. The message had sunk in: the National Front and the British National Party have never made any inroads in Leicester. The fascists are feeding off communal ill will. They are attacking the Muslim communities. They are very happy when the Muslim community attacks the Jewish community. There have been Muslim marches with those taking part carrying banners saying, "Death to Jews". I believe that any Jewish person who carries a banner displaying the words, "Death to M uslims"—I know of none—should be prosecuted, locked up, and kept away from society for as long as possible.
The Jewish community understands that if the far Right waxes fat on its attacks on the Muslim community, other minority communities will follow. The Muslim community must understand that if they pick successfully on the Jewish community, they will be next. We are very fortunate to live in this great, decent, and happy land, all of us together, with our agreements and disagreements. We must keep it that way; we must not allow foreign wars to turn into wars in the United Kingdom. That is as vital a message for us in the Iraqi situation today as it is in any other.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to a certain time in the past and mentioned my name, I should like to seize this opportunity to clarify the events in question.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I was commanding a unit in the division that discovered the concentration camp at Belsen. It was three weeks before the end of the war, and I was wounded two weeks later. After that, I spent over a year in hospital
896
recovering from my injuries and left in a wheelchair. That is the course of events that the noble Lord described. Those of us who found Belsen and realised what had been going on there were absolutely horrified and will always remember it.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. It is an honour for me to work with him in this House in an effort to prevent such events ever occurring again, whatever minority may be under attack.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Black of Crossharbour: My Lords, I believe that the debate is highlighting the difficulties of reconciling the requirements of internationalism with the existence in the world of one overwhelmingly powerful country, not only militarily but also, in the case of the United States, economically and in terms of its popular cultural influence.
We should bear in mind the fact that the American public and the American Government believe that they have sustained an act of war, and that they are at war. The President of the United States received from both Houses of the Congress far heavier majorities authorising the use of force against Iraq than his father received for authorising the Gulf War.
On 11th September of last year the President of the United States said that the US was at war and that it would consider its enemies to be all terrorists; that it would hunt down terrorists wherever they were: that it would make no distinction between terrorists and countries that supported terrorists; and that it would judge by their actions whether any country, and all countries, were friends or foes of America. I believe that all of America's allies essentially heard and agreed with that position when the President enunciated it. He has been quite faithful to that. In the subsequent weeks, I believe that some of the President's advisers made it clear that, in practice, where there is a legitimate territorial issue—such as in Israel and in Palestine—that policy can be varied somewhat, but in general the United States has continued to adhere to it.
What the Congress has voted and what has been ratified by the most successful mid-term election in 68 years was tantamount to a declaration of war; to call it otherwise is a distinction without a difference. That is the condition that the United States is in. Given the severity of the provocation, given the overwhelming evidence that Iraq is a terrorist state, given the egregious acts of terrorism with which Saddam Hussein has been complicit, the United States has in fact behaved with considerable constraint, particularly as it has more military power than all other countries in the world put together. It has a casus belli and it has a righteous cause under international law.
When the President of the United States spoke at the United Nations in September of this year, he made it clear that his objective was in fact the reinforcement of international law, to give effect to the 11 to 16 resolutions which the government of Iraq had

897
contemptuously evaded prohibiting the development of designated weapons of mass destruction. The President said that it was his administration's goal that the United Nations should not become derisory and impotent as the League of Nations had when faced with the aggression of Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s. I am sure that those are objectives with which all noble Lords are in complete agreement. However, we should be under no illusion whatever that the Government of Iraq would pay any more attention to this resolution than they paid to previous ones were it not for the purposeful position adopted by the United States since September 11th 2001.
That is entirely continuous to longstanding American national security policy enunciated by President Roosevelt in 1941, when he said that America,
"must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal would preach the Ism of appeasement'".
Later in 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour, he said that America would,
"make very certain that this form of treachery never again endangers us".
The United States has not been an appeasement power, and, since 1941, no one has dared attack it directly and identify itself with that attack.
I think that it is also to be borne in mind that, while he is a secular leader, Saddam Hussein has set himself at the head of the radical Islamists—of that school of thinking which holds that any form of violence is justified in pursuit of their objectives; that all of the West, not just the United States, is cowardly and decadent; and that the West reposes on no principles whatever except an over-commercialised self-indulgence.
There is no doubt that the Government of Iraq is in defiance of a great sequence of United Nations resolutions and of the terms ending the Gulf War. I must dissent somewhat from the distinction which some draw between the express desire for regime change and the desire to disarm the Government of Iraq. The fact is that we cannot have disarmament of Iraq without a Government of Iraq who wish to disarm. It is illusory to think otherwise. Many preceding speakers have put that point very well and I shall not elaborate on it. However, we should always he mindful of that fact.
The United States possesses a casus belli now. It is behaving in perfect conformity with international law now. The frequently expressed allegations against its unilateralism are in my opinion doubly false: first, it has not acted unilaterally; secondly, it has a perfect right and military capability to do so if it wishes. As has been said, the resolution which we are considering calls upon a process of discussion at the Security Council in the event of considered non-compliance and the advocacy by any of the members for recourse to force. I think that in practice, as my noble friend Lord Powell of Bayswater said—in this as in everything that he said I emphatically agree with him—it is very likely that, unfortunately, that is exactly what is going to happen barring a grace of conversion for which I think there is no precedent.
898
When we get to that point, what will happen is that the United States ambassador will informally discuss with the permanent Security Council members whether they are prepared to approve a further resolution. If they are not, or at least if they are not all prepared to abstain from vetoing it, I think that we will go to the use of force quite quickly. Like all noble Lords, I would regret that in the abstract. In those circumstances, however, we will have no moral or practical political choice.
I very respectfully caution anyone in need of it against conveying to the Americans the impression that they are regarded as equivalent to a great St Bernard dog which will take the risks and do the work while its ostensible allies including Europeans hold the leash and give the orders. It is not by succumbing to such a system that the United States has risen in a relatively short time to exercise greater influence in the world than any other country in the history of the world. It is obviously not a formula that is acceptable to that country. I think that we would do ourselves no favours in trying to advocate such an approach.
In the summer, a very senior member of the Government told me that if the potential action against Iraq were led by China or Russia there would be no great opposition to it in the parliamentary ranks of the governing party or elsewhere in this country or in Europe, but that people were worried by the force of the United States. I am worried by the force of envy. I think that we have nothing to fear, and nothing to do other than rejoice in the fact that the power of the United States resides with a country that broadly shares our values and generally behaves with restraint and a respect for justice in the abstract, and which is all the same not, as I said, an appeasement power. I think that that is a source of great relief to all of us. There are in your Lordships' House those who vividly remember from their own observations the consequences of the leading powers of the West not behaving in the 1930s as the United States is behaving now.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m, my noble friend Lord McIntosh will repeat a Statement on British Energy.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 1.36 p.m.]

Seat Belts
3 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to require all coaches to be fitted with seat belts for both drivers and passengers and all drivers and passengers to be required to wear these seat belts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all new coaches are now required to have seat belts fitted in all forward and rear facing seats. Drivers and front seat passengers in all vehicles must use seat belts where provided. An EU directive under discussion will require passengers aged three and over in the rear of coaches to use the seat belts provided.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer but can he please tell us how many lives he estimates have been lost, and how many injuries suffered, through people in such coaches not being safely belted in? If, as he says, there is a law that certain passengers on coaches where seat belts are provided must be belted in, what steps are the Government taking to enforce that law? How many people have been prosecuted and with what result? In order to prevent deaths and injuries, some of which have occurred in recent disasters, will my noble friend issue an instruction that drivers must not depart without ensuring that they and all passengers aboard are safely belted into place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in each of the past five years there have been between 11 and 18 deaths in coaches. We cannot tell how many of those deaths resulted from the provision or non-provision of seat belts as some of them occurred as people were getting off and on coaches. Clearly, every single death is a death too many, but that does not mean that this is an enormous problem. All coaches first registered after 1st October last year must have seat belts fitted. Since 1997 all coaches that carry children—that includes nearly all coaches as they cannot make a living unless they carry children as well as adults—must have seat belts fitted. The difficulty, which is recognised in the Question, is that of enforcement and getting drivers and those in charge to ensure that seat belts are used.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, as I understand it, not only coach passengers but also coach drivers will in future have to wear seat belts and why lorry drivers will not be required to wear seat belts? What is the difference between coach drivers and lorry drivers? Would it not be better for lorry drivers also to wear seat belts? As I understand the position, older coaches will not be required to have seat belts fitted as sometimes their floors are not strong enough to enable them to be fitted safely. But is there any reason why, on those older coaches, the driver should not be required to wear a seat belt?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the argument used at the time—I do not express any
900
judgment on its correctness—both as regards drivers of lorries and drivers of taxis was that their safety would be compromised if they could not get out of their vehicles quickly. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right to say that satisfactory moorings for seat belts do not exist in very old coaches. That is a serious disadvantage as it means that they cannot carry children. They will be phased out in a short period of time. As regards the requirement for drivers to wear seat belts not being enforced, that is a perfectly fair point that deserves to be followed up.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the coach crash on the M25 on 16th November, which I believe prompted my noble friend's sensible Question and supplementary question, tragically killed six people travelling back from the Continent but attracted less media attention than the derailment last Sunday of a First Great Western train at Ealing? That incident attracted tabloid headlines such as "train terror" even though not a single passenger was killed or injured. Should we not stress over and over again how much safer train travel is than travel by road? The latest statistics show that travel can be up to 20 times safer by train than by road.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that train travel is very safe but it is also true that coach travel is very safe. I refer to the figures that I gave and to a figure for all road user casualties of over 300,000. When we compare that with a figure of well under 1,000 casualties from coach travel, it can be seen that we should not extend the dangers of road travel to coaches.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to answer my question about whether there have been any and, if so, how many, prosecutions for failing to wear seat belts and, if so, with what result?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I try to answer two questions from each speaker as that is what I understand to be the convention of the House. I shall write to my noble friend on that point.

Private Sector Healthcare
3.6 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they intend to introduce to encourage the growth of the private sector in healthcare.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government's first priority is to implement the NHS Plan and deliver a high quality service to the public. It is not our policy to promote private healthcare as an alternative to the NHS. However, it is

901
our policy to use the private sector when it can support the public sector to improve public services, for example, by increasing NHS capacity and patient choice.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I welcome the Government's radical use of the private sector to free up supply to the National Health Service. But is it not time, and is it not logical, to go a step further because is it not increasingly open to argument that however much money is put into a monopolistic state system it will not deliver commensurate improvements? Given that half the hospitals in Germany are in the nonpublic sector and that in France, Switzerland and Germany there are competing independent insurance systems, why do the Government, who have called a debate on the health service, refuse even to consider measures to encourage similar developments in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Wanless report examined those matters to some considerable degree. In terms of funding of the NHS it concluded that there is not an alternative funding method to that currently in place in the UK that would deliver a given level and quality of healthcare either at lower cost to the economy or in a more equitable way. The Wanless review was thorough. We see the need for greater diversity and provision of services. That is why we are quite prepared to use the private sector in the way that has been developed in the past few years. Each country has developed its own culture and system in health. It seems surely better to take what we have, improve it, use the private sector where effective but concentrate our focus on building on the excellence of the National Health Service.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the view stated by the Minister and not the belief of many on the Conservative Benches that the salvation of the NHS seems to lie in the private sector. One of the points made by the Health Select Committee earlier this year was that the NHS simply lacks the procurement and commissioning skills necessary to secure value for money when procuring from the private sector. What steps are being taken to ensure that the NHS will have that expertise and experience?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have given clear advice to the NHS that there is potential for obtaining keener prices in the contracts that it negotiates with the private sector. We are putting in place a new financial planning framework for NHS services which will give much greater guidance and encouragement to the NHS to ensure that it has the proper contracting skills and to ensure value for money. As relationships develop between the NHS and the private sector the NHS will become much more skilled at obtaining a good deal.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, a Labour government introduced the National Health Service, which became the pride of the world in terms of healthcare. Does my noble friend agree that, following 18 years of neglect of the National Health Service by the previous Administration, at this stage it would be a retrograde step to return to a system where the Government encouraged private medicine? Would that not again introduce a price tag on health benefits, whereby those with the ability to pay would receive the best treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The NHS was a great service and a wonderful vision for which many people in this country are extremely grateful. It has a great ethos and receives tremendous support from its staff and .from the public. But, as the Kennedy report into the Bristol Royal Infirmary showed, it was starved of resources and capacity over many years. We are putting that situation right. The NHS Plan is the way forward, and I am confident that the NHS, in partnership with the voluntary, and indeed the private, sectors, will produce the high-quality services that we all want to see.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how does the noble Lord justify the term "starved of resources" when the National Health Service has received an increase of 43 per cent in real terms over the past 10 years—half under one government and half under another?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, so far as concerns the amount of resources going into the National Health Service, perhaps I may set out what is intended for the next five years. By 2008, NHS resources and healthcare spending in general will be brought to a level of 9.4 per cent of GDP. That is how we shall deliver the targets and priorities in the NHS Plan.
So far as concerns the previous government's record on expenditure, the fact is that they did starve the NHS of resources. When they increased the amount of resources—I refer, in particular, to the early 1990s—that went not on patient care but on the incredibly wasteful bureaucratic system of the internal market.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not only would it be illogical to try to improve the health service by transferring funds from the health service to the private sector; it would also be highly undesirable? The stand outlined by my noble friend will receive warm support throughout the country, especially from the many millions of people who depend on the health service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right that we must focus on improving and developing the National Health Service. But the issue that we face at present is a lack of capacity. That is why we are embarking on a major hospital building programme. It is also why we are increasing the

903
number of training places and recruiting staff at home and abroad. However, with current capacity being very tight, it surely also makes sense to use the private sector, which at present has considerable spare capacity.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the delivery target for digital hearing aids appears to have fallen behind substantially. Does the Minister agree that it would be useful to go into partnership in respect of digital hearing aids, not least in the fitting of the aids, in which the private sector has considerable expertise?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that the National Health Service should look for partnerships with the private sector where that sector can provide expertise that is not available within the NHS, whether in relation to services for deaf people or other services. That is the intention of the Government. I believe that over the past few years many schemes have shown the benefit of using private sector expertise.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given that the private healthcare sector has three distinct components—the profit-making one, the mutual one and the charitable one—the most natural partner for the NHS would be, first, the charitable sector, secondly, the mutual sector and, only thirdly, the profit-making sector?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly welcome the long tradition of the NHS working with both the charitable sector and what the noble Lord describes as the "mutual" sector. I should have thought that the hospice movement is an example of that. But, ultimately, what counts is whether we can increase capacity in the NHS. Even with profitable private hospital care providers, if they have spare capacity which the NHS could use, we should use it.

Asylum Seekers
3.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the health needs of asylum seekers who have entered the United Kingdom are being met.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, people who seek asylum in the United Kingdom are fully entitled to NHS treatment without charge. In England, initiatives such as local development schemes, personal medical pilots and pilot health assessments for newly arrived asylum seekers are geared to meeting their health needs.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What action are the Government taking to combat the worrying increase
904
in TB among asylum seekers entering this country? In the borough of Newham, 200 out of every 100,000 people now have TB—a higher incidence than in India.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the problem of TB. The majority of asylum seekers entering the UK via east Kent ports are screened for, and, if appropriate, vaccinated against, TB as part of a Home Office-funded pilot. We shall review the results of that pilot in the new year and, in the light of that, make decisions about the future of screening newly arrived asylum seekers not only in Kent but throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, asylum seekers access the free health service via form HC2, which they use to apply for help with health costs. Such help, along with their housing and subsistence money, comes via NASS, the National Asylum Support Service. Will the Minister consider the case of those who reach the end of the process in terms of their applications and appeals and who are unsuccessful but who cannot be, and are not, removed from this country because they come from places such as Iraq to which it is currently impossible to send people? Such people lose not only their housing and subsistence payments but also their HC2 help with health costs. How are they supposed to access health services when they need prescriptions, dental treatment, sight tests, or whatever?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that when applications are refused by the Home Office, asylum seekers often appeal against the decision. While appeals are outstanding, free NHS treatment continues. That is also the case in relation to those whose applications fail but who are given indefinite leave to remain in the UK. As the noble Lord suggested, that is appropriate where it is currently not safe for an asylum seeker to return to his country of origin. Those who do not appeal and who are not given leave to remain may be removed from the UK. While they are waiting for that to happen, they will not he refused any treatment they require before removal.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, did I hear the Minister aright? Did he say that when asylum seekers arrive in this country and are found to have tuberculosis, they are given a jab and then sent on their way? Is that sensible? Does it not encourage spread of the disease?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly we need to ensure that health-screening measures are appropriate. I referred to a pilot scheme being undertaken in east Kent. We shall consider the evaluation of that pilot to see how well it works. We are concerned about TB and its potential spread. We are keeping the matter under tight review.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that proper records should be maintained of asylum seekers who are pregnant or who have suffered recent

905
miscarriages? In which places of detention does he consider that adequate healthcare facilities are available to such persons?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is a problem with health records, particularly as asylum seekers move around the country. There is no doubt that hand-held patient records are the most appropriate method for dealing with the problem referred to by the noble Lord and for recording health information. The asylum seeker would keep the handheld record and take it to health appointments wherever that may be. Many areas have developed their own hand-held records for issue to asylum seekers. My department is working with front -line staff on the development of a national model.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the additional costs to the health service of asylum seekers are met? He will be aware that there are signs of stress in the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, such costs fall within the NHS budget. We are dealing with that in a number of ways. We are looking to make the funding formula sensitive enough to ensure that primary care trusts receive an appropriate allocation. We have also pursued a number of local initiatives, such as local development schemes, where additional money is allocated by the department to help primary care trusts and GPs in specific areas. The flexibility of the personal medical service pilots in relation to the remuneration of GPs may also be of assistance. I acknowledge that particular areas of the health service are under financial pressure as a result of this situation.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the full range of health services will be available to asylum seekers in the new accommodation centres and that there will be no discrimination, as there is in education?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention is that appropriate health services of NHS standard are available.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the remuneration of GPs includes a considerable capitation element for regular performance of routine tasks such as vaccinations? Can he confirm that in the case of the homeless, that has been a deterrent to GPs registering transients? Can he tell the House whether the dispersal policy has made that operate even more in the case of asylum seekers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there have been cases in which GPs were reluctant to accept asylum seekers. There have been one or two cases—we are currently investigating the facts—where a GP had a deliberate policy of not accepting asylum seekers. I cannot support that in any way. The scale of fees and allowances is based on both a basic practice allowance and a capitation allowance, which should ensure that
906
additional patients mean additional financial rewards for a general practitioner. However, I accept that that may not be sensitive enough in the circumstances raised by the noble Earl. We are in discussions with GPs about their national contracts. We also believe that the PMS pilots give greater flexibility to the NHS at local level, which may enable them to deal with the issues raised by the noble Earl.

Railway Stations: Passenger Lifts
3.24 p.m.
Lord Berkeleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why passenger lifts at surface railway stations have been closed to passengers during the strike by fire-fighters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the beginning of the Fire Brigade industrial dispute, station operating companies carried out detailed health and safety risk assessments at the behest of the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE has not specifically recommended the closure of lifts at surface railway stations. A small number of station operating companies have judged it appropriate to close passenger lifts during the strike.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. A number of station lifts are still closed, including the one at Oxford. Do the Government believe that an open lift made of steel and glass in an open-air station is at greater risk of catching fire than a lift in an office building? Surely, if a lift breaks down the answer is to call a lift engineer rather than the fire brigade. Can he issue an instruction to the train operators to open the lifts and to give to the staff on duty the name of a suitable lift engineer to call to get people out if the lift breaks down?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The Government do not involve themselves in matters of that kind. Such assessments of safety risks are for the Health and Safety Executive and for the train operating companies. This is not a "nanny state". There are things which can be done, and which have been recommended by the Health and Safety Executive. It is desirable for emergency procedures to be put in place for the manual winding of lifts, and for staff to accompany passengers in lifts. Companies could consider restricting lift use and directing passengers over ramps and footbridges. However, those are matters for the operating companies and the Health and Safety Executive.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the closure of various parts of London Underground was decided by the unions or by London Underground?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was decided by London Underground on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, if we are not a "nanny state", are we not in danger of becoming a very hysterical state, where at the first excuse people quote health and safety as the reason why lifts are closed; why the roadway at Potters Bar has not been repaired; and why coach seat belts should be worn? It is well known that travel by coach is the safest means of road travel. Can he assure the House that Ministers, officials and anyone else over whom he has influence will try to avoid that type of hysteria, and play down the general reaction of the media?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have said within the past half hour that coach travel is one of the safest forms of road travel. I am rather opposed to exhortation as a means of government. The good sense of the British people will resist the kind of hysteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister referred to a few stations. Perhaps he has not heard, as I did today on the underground, that 22 stations are closed. If the Government have delegated to the Health and Safety Executive responsibility for advice on this matter, is he sure that it is giving correct advice by failing to have lifts closed in hotels, offices, stores and in other buildings to which the public have access, including, at certain times of day, the Palace of Westminster?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to surface railway stations, not deep stations in the London Underground. My comment of "very few" referred to surface railway stations. The 22 stations of the London Underground to which the noble Lord referred are closed because they are deep stations with access only by lift or very long flights of stairs.

British Energy
3.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about British Energy:
"British Energy operates eight nuclear power stations in the UK, supplies over one-fifth of our electricity and employs 5,200 workers in Britain.
"In May this year the company in its preliminary results announced a pre-tax, pre-exceptionals, profit of £42 million in its UK and North American operations but an overall loss to its UK operations of £41 million. None the less, the company chose to maintain its dividend, paying out £48 million to shareholders.
"During the summer, British Energy decided to attempt a bond issue in the United States. It was unsuccessful. On 13th August, one of the reactors at
908
the company's Torness station was taken out of service due to unforeseen problems—reducing the company's income by £56 million.
"The next day company executives told investors that there were no immediate cash flow problems.
"Throughout the summer, British Energy engaged in discussions with BNFL to renegotiate the terms of its contracts. These were entirely commercial discussions between the two companies.
"At the beginning of September, British Energy realised that its financial problems were far greater than it had thought and that any conceivable deal with BNFL would not be enough to meet its requirements.
"On 4th September the company wrote to inform me of a significant worsening of the company's financial position and liquidity problems. It said the board would have to decide, on legal advice, whether it could continue to meet its liabilities and therefore trade legally. And it asked for government help.
"The next day I announced that the Government were entering into discussions with the company. On 9th September I announced a loan facility of £410 million to support its trading operations both in the UK and in North America.
"On 26th September, after a further request from the company, the Government decided to extend the loan facility until 29th November and increase it to £650 million. This was to give the company sufficient time to clarify its financial position and to come to a clear view on its future options.
"Both the initial loan and its extension were notified to the European Commission under state aid rules, and I can tell the House that the Commission announced yesterday that it has approved the loan. I offered that loan because it was the best way of securing the safety of the nuclear power stations and the security of electricity supply to the grid and consumers. These remain my overriding objectives.
"British Energy has submitted a plan to the Government for the solvent restructuring of the company. We, and our financial advisers, have assessed its implications and I can announce to the House that the Government have agreed to play their part in allowing the company to attempt solvent restructuring.
"Both the company and my department have made statements to the Stock Exchange today; I have placed copies of both in the Libraries of the House and in the Vote Office.
"The company has announced that it will continue to make payments to a fund which is used to pay for costs of decommissioning its power stations; give the fund £275 million of bonds in the company; and surrender to the fund 65 per cent of its available cash each year.
"The Government will underwrite these arrangements to ensure safety and environmental protection. In addition, we have recognised that if

909
this restructuring is to work, the Government themselves must contribute significantly to the company's £2.1 billion of historic nuclear fuel liabilities managed by BNFL which extend to 2086. The cost to the Government will average £150 million to £200 million per annum for the next 10 years and fall thereafter.
"If the company does very well, surpluses from BE's contribution to the decommissioning funds will help meet these costs. But I also intend to look at how these contracts are managed as part of the creation of the Liabilities Management Authority.
"In addition, BNFL is today announcing that it will agree new contracts with British Energy for fuel supply and for spent fuel services in respect of future nuclear electricity generation.
"If the company's proposed restructuring is to succeed, the existing creditors will have to accept a temporary freeze on payments and subsequently a significant writedown in the value of what they are owed. Secondly, the company will have to complete the sale of all its North American operations. And, thirdly, the company will have to implement the new trading strategy it has announced today.
"Agreement to this must be achieved by the middle of February.
"The Government are prepared to continue to fund BE's operations while the restructuring plan is agreed and implemented. The existing credit facility will be extended to 9th March with the size of the facility remaining unchanged at £650 million.
"Of the existing facility of £650 million, £382 million had been drawn down by yesterday. Under the proposal, the money will be progressively repaid as the financial situation improves. And in the event of administration we have taken security to protect the interests of the taxpayer and rank above other creditors.
"I also intend to bring forward legislation shortly to enable me to carry forward the Government's part of the proposed restructuring or, if it fails, to acquire the companies or their assets.
"This proposal for solvent restructuring will of course need state aid approval by the European Commission. Once the company has reached agreement with its financial creditors we will notify the plan to the Commission.
"I said in September that, if possible, we would look to a solvent restructuring. However, we did not rule out that the company might decide to go into administration.
"We have therefore prepared detailed contingency plans for administration in discussion with all the key responsible regulatory bodies to ensure that whatever happened nuclear safety and security of supply would be maintained.
"Let me stress that if British Energy were to go into administration all its nuclear liabilities would fall to government. We cannot just walk away from
910
them; no responsible government would. This is the reason why the situation with British Energy is different from any other generator.
"I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff at British Energy. Their skill and dedication is essential to ensuring nuclear safety. This has been an unsettling time for them but whatever happens nuclear power stations will continue to generate electricity and will continue to employ staff. Pension entitlements will be met. Trade suppliers will be paid. And customers' lights will stay on.
"I understand that today's news will give little comfort to British Energy's financial stakeholders. But they too must take their share of the pain if the company is to survive. The stakeholders now need to decide whether they are willing to support solvent restructuring. If they are not, the Government are fully prepared if British Energy decides that administration is the only option.
"Today the company has announced that Robin Jeffrey is stepping down and that Adrian Montague will succeed him as chairman. Mr Montague is an experienced executive who brings key business experience, from both the public and private sectors. It is clear there have been management failings and I think it is right for the company to be seeking to strengthen the management learn at this critical time.
"I have set out today the limits of what the Government are willing to do to support solvent restructuring. It is now up to the company, its new management and its financial stakeholders to determine the future of British Energy".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by his right honourable friend. the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It has at least given Parliament the chance to question Her Majesty's Government over a decision taken almost three months ago which committed £650 million of taxpayers' money to bailing out British Energy, although, as we see it, occurring at the last possible parliamentary moment before a decision by the Government had to be made.
In a fairly detailed Statement, I find it somewhat strange that no mention is made of the climate change levy. Does the Minister riot consider it absurd that Her Majesty's Government claim that imposing the climate change levy is part of their strategy to meet our climate change commitments? Since nuclear power is the principal energy source that does not generate CO2 emissions, this is really an absurd contradiction. The fact is that British Energy will always struggle until the climate change levy is removed.
Does the Minister agree that the right answer would be to abolish the climate change levy, an arbitrary tax that unfortunately does not play a part in addressing the climate change problem? Does he further agree that it could be replaced with a single economic

911
instrument which could be an emissions trading system or a carbon tax? Is the Minister aware that this is not just a view that I mention as a member of my party but that of the Royal Society which only two weeks or so ago issued its policy document on this very important matter? Can the Minister tell the House why Her Majesty's Government do not accept these arguments by the Royal Society, which were strongly and with authority put in the paper that it issued? Does the Minister agree that the approach I have just indicated would improve the position of both nuclear and renewables compared with fossil fuels? Or is the problem that the Treasury perhaps would not like it?
The Statement indicates that BNFL is announcing today that it will agree new contracts with British Energy for fuel supply and for spent fuel services in respect of future electricity generation. But is it not a fact that, some time ago, British Energy reached agreement with BNFL on terms that the department agreed, only to have the agreement blocked by the Treasury?
Does the Minister realise that part of the problem is the Government's muddled approach to the whole of the nuclear industry, with Ministers not singing from the same hymn sheet? Does he recall a statement on British Energy made by the Minister of State as recently as 17th November to the Sunday Times? He said:
"We need that supply, so come what may, nuclear generation will continue".
Only eight days later, we read in the Western Mail that the Secretary of State for Wales, the former energy Minister, wants to shut nuclear power stations. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the true position.
In the Statement, the Minister told the House that British Energy has submitted a plan to the Government regarding the solvent restructuring of the company. The Secretary of State said that she and her financial advisers have examined and accepted it. Of course, we hope that it is successful, but as we know that the security of supply is of the most overriding importance, is it consistent with the new electricity trading arrangements, NETA? The Minister who made the Statement is not the Minister who answered a Question on Monday on electricity supply, when that very matter arose. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that he was totally satisfied that there would be no problem with supply. Can the Minister tell us whether that is still the position?
Perhaps some consideration should now be given to the remit of the regulator. Much as we like electricity costs to be as low as possible for consumers, we also want an electricity supply and an electricity generating industry. Are the new financial commitments mentioned in the Statement included in the new, huge borrowing requirements announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday in the other place? Now that the Secretary of State has made it clear that she will not let British Energy go into administration, what is the assessment of the cost to the taxpayer?
912
The problems of British Energy are undoubtedly due to the fall in prices paid to the generator, which have not been helped by NETA.
I am terribly sorry, but I must tell the Minister that if he was confused by anything that I said, so was I. because I read page seven of my brief before page six, which is absolutely appalling. He must have thought it rather strange that all of a sudden I mentioned N ETA out of all context. Did noble Lords notice?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Well, my Lords, it is really bad news if, at the end of the day, I make a mistake like that. Perhaps I should not have brought it to the Minister's attention. I shall not read that page again, unless the Minister would like me to, but I think I ended up by saying what I meant to end up by saying, which is that perhaps the remit of the regulator should now be considered. Much as we want electricity costs to be as low as possible, we definitely want continuity of electricity in the generating industry. I apologise again to the Minister for my eagerness to finish my response to the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating this important and in many ways disturbing Statement. I accept that in view of the importance and size of British Energy, which supplies more than 20 per cent of the electricity needs of the country, in these difficult circumstances there either had to be a restructuring or the Government had to take over responsibility for running the assets and continuing to supply electricity from them. Those were the two options described in the Statement.
However, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, it was implied in the first part of the Statement that British Energy should have taken action earlier and that, had it done so, the solution could have been less costly. Is that the Government's view, as is implied in the Statement? Apart from that, the major external factor—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred—has undoubtedly been the massive fall in wholesale electricity prices, which has affected not only British Energy but other major generating companies. Incidentally, that big reduction in wholesale electricity prices has only in part been passed on to the retail sector.
The reason for the fall in those prices has undoubtedly been the operation of the new electricity trading arrangements, NETA. Does the Minister agree that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, it is time to review the operation of NETA, which seems to have introduced a degree of instability in the marketplace? The question of security of supply is obviously closely tied to that question. Earlier this week, I asked the Question to which the noble Baroness referred and received a reassurance from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that electricity reserves were adequate. I beg to differ; they are probably inadequate to meet exceptional circumstances. But whatever may

913
be the case, should we not review the regulatory arrangements to ensure that a reserve capacity is maintained?
Under the previous, much criticised Pool arrangements, there was such a provision. There is no longer. The Government have said that they will keep the electricity supply situation under review, but what will they do if the review shows that a shortage is likely to develop? From where will they get the reserve capacity, if it has not been previously built up and maintained?
Apart from the question of reserve capacity, to which nuclear and other generators must contribute, there is the big issue of the future of the nuclear industry itself. We hope that that will be clarified in the forthcoming energy review. Does the Minister agree t hat it is vital that a decision should then be reached on the future of the nuclear industry? Either we continue with a nuclear industry of the size that we have now—in which case all the problems of the cost of construction, decommissioning and dealing with waste and security issues must be identified and resolved—or, if that is not to be done, we must be clear what other forms of energy are to be developed that will have a similar impact on the environment.
So the issue does not simply affect a single electricity generating company. It raises wide questions of energy policy, security of supply and, above all, the future of the nuclear industry itself.
3.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for their reception of the Statement. I say straightaway to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. that I was not at all worried by the reversal of the order. I listened to Mr Tim Yeo's intervention in the Commons. I took careful notes. I noted the seven points that he made. The fact that the noble Baroness took one of them out of order does not worry me in the least. At least they were the same points. which is helpful. A co-ordinated Opposition! I am glad to hear it. Unfortunately, it does not sound as though the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, paid attention to the very effective answers which the Secretary of State gave to Mr Tim Yeo. The arguments that were used do not carry much weight.
The noble Baroness asked about the climate change levy. She said in effect that we should be moving over to a carbon tax or to trading permits. The climate change levy and the alternatives of carbon tax and energy trading permits will, of course, be considered in the White Paper that will be published in the new year. However, the Secretary of State made it clear that this is not a carbon tax. It is intended as an energy efficiency incentive for the whole energy industry and all its customers. The noble Baroness and Mr Yeo can hardly expect us to make a change for just one company.
The noble Baroness repeated the allegation that there had been a deal between British Energy and BNFL that had been blocked by the Treasury. That is
914
not the case. It is a commercial deal between the two companies in which the Government were not involved. She repeated the question about the role of the obligations in yesterday's announcement of the Pre-Budget Report and the borrowing requirement despite the fact that the Secretary of State answered clearly that those obligations could be and would be maintained within the departmental expenditure limit of the Department of Trade and Industry and would, therefore, have no effect on the figures in the Pre-Budget Report.
Security of supply is a legitimate concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked me about it. I shall give the facts of the matter. The capacity of the generating industry is 65 gigawatts. The peak demand in the winter of 2000–01 was 55 gigawatts, which leaves a margin of 17.5 per cent. That is just about the same margin as there has been for many years. It has been lower in one or two years and more like 20 per cent for most years. Now, as opposed to the position in the past, there are seven gigawatts of capacity in power stations that are mothballed and could be brought back into operation. We are always concerned about security of supply, and we never relax that concern. However, the arrangements and the capacity that we have and can bring into use are adequate for the purpose.
The noble Baroness repeated the allegation that the climate change levy was generated by the Treasury's need for revenue. The climate change levy is revenue neutral. She asked for an assurance that we would not let British Energy go into administration. That is a matter for the company, it has an obligation to reform its managerial activities and persuade its bondholders, stakeholders and shareholders that it is in their interest not to go into administration. If it fails to do that, there is a threat of administration, and the Statement made that clear.
I was surprised by some of the comments about the new electricity trading arrangement. I had thought that it was a success for the Government and a success for the Utilities Bill that I was proud to take through the House a couple of years ago with the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It was a success that retail prices were brought down by the new electricity trading arrangement. That was what we tried to do. The old pool arrangements were absurd. They were contradictory and led to excessive profits for some of the energy companies. That is not to say that we do not keep NETA under review. We support changes that will reduce barriers to consolidation and the balancing mechanism. Again, such matters can be considered when we produce our White Paper in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised a particular point about whether British Energy should have taken action earlier. He heard the criticism in the Statement of some of the actions of British Energy earlier this year. They are matters for the management of the company, not the Government, but the Secretary of State made the Government's views sufficiently clear. I have answered the noble Lord's questions about the fall in prices due to NETA and about the review of

915
NETA. His broader question about the future of nuclear energy is, of course, a matter for the White Paper to be published in the new year.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I heard the Statement with great interest. As my noble friend knows, I have been an advocate of nuclear energy for a long time—since my early life as a civil engineer, when I used to design nuclear power stations.
I shall pick up a point raised by my noble neighbour—although she sits on the other side of the House—Lady Miller of Hendon relating to the climate change levy. No doubt, the climate levy had positive features, but my noble friend must know that the form of energy that has least impact on the climate is nuclear energy. The imposition of the climate levy on nuclear energy is, therefore, not only mistaken but daft. I have been in this House for 25 years or so and in another place for longer, and I am used to seeing governments do things that are unnecessary and daft. It is the way of things. However, to impose the levy, which deals with climate change, on an industry that does not change the climate is dafter than daft.
I do not blame my noble friend. He is one of my oldest friends in politics. However, he should suggest to those who are in authority that they should pull themselves together and have a good look at the matter. If they will not listen to what I have said on the matter, they should, at least, listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already made it clear that the imposition of the climate change levy on British Energy is not being done because we think that British Energy produces byproducts that damage the climate. That is not the purpose of the climate change levy. The levy is an energy efficiency incentive for the whole energy industry and for all its customers. It is one of a range of possibilities that can be considered in helping the Government and the country to achieve our objectives under the Kyoto arrangements.
We have not ruled out the alternatives such as the carbon tax or energy trading permits. We will consider those matters in full in the White Paper that will be produced early next year.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the gravity of the Statement is underlined by the fact that, as I understand it, the Government have just taken on a further commitment of £2 billion over the next 10 years. The costs in other areas may be substantially greater.
Has any agreement been reached to change in any way the previous programme for the closure of ageing or obsolete nuclear power stations, including, in particular, advanced gas-cooled reactors? Are there
916
any proposals on that, or is the policy of maintaining nuclear power in this country on the programme of British Energy to be sustained?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, existing programmes for closure of nuclear installations are not affected by the proposals in the Statement.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I listened carefully, but I am not sure that I heard the Minister explain how the Government would underwrite the arrangements for the proposed solvent restructuring. What is the limit of the underwriting commitment, expressed in an amount and in time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures are contained in a statement made by the company and the Government to the Stock Exchange, which is available in the Library of the House. I think it better that I should rely on that rather than seek to find the figure and run the risk of making a mistake.

Iraq
4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I rise to support the Security Council Resolution 1441. That a unanimous resolution of this character was passed on 8th November is a tribute to the efforts of the Prime Minister, for which he deserves great credit, which has been freely given from all sides of politics.
Furthermore, our position in international law is much more secure than it was in the case of Kosovo. As Saddam Hussein ignored a succession of Chapter VII resolutions before the Gulf War, calling on him to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, he is in "material breach" of the obligation imposed on him after his ejection from Kuwait, which, as the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out, was the condition of his political survival. He is being given a "final opportunity to comply". All that is straightforward.
I want to ask a slightly different question, which is in the nature of a thought experiment. Why is it so necessary and urgent to disarm Saddam Hussein now? It is in my approach to this question that I fear I shall diverge from most views hitherto expressed in this debate. It is important to give a convincing answer to that question, because on that answer hinges the question: how big a failure of Saddam Hussein to comply fully with Resolution 1441 would justify resort to a war to remove him?
So far, the debate has proceeded on the assumption that anything less than total compliance would justify the most extreme measures. The Shadow Foreign Secretary said in another place that to leave Saddam Hussein in possession of the arsenal he is believed to have would be inconceivable. Why? Not only is it conceivable, but it has been the actual situation for the past 10 years. It seems to me inconceivable that

917
Saddam Hussein will launch another foreign adventure of the kind that he launched in 1991. Not only are his conventional capabilities much reduced, but he can be in no doubt about the response of the international community were he to try. As matters stand at the moment, he is thoroughly trussed up. Had Hitler been certain that the whole world would unite against him, I doubt whether even he would have risked war in 1939.
The badness of Saddam Hussein is not in issue: he is a bad man. But evil is a quality of human character. Evil acts depend on opportunity. We have already cut away his opportunities. The argument must then go one step further. It must be that Saddam Hussein sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as the means of his liberation from the pen in which the international community has placed him. He could either allow non-state terrorists access to these weapons or spread death and destruction by using them himself. I suggest that there must be considerable scepticism on both counts. In particular, some of the alarmist scenarios conjured up by germ warfare verge on science fiction.
What are the facts? To take nuclear weapons, unlike Israel, Saddam Hussein has no nuclear capacity and is probably some years away from developing it: that will depend on his getting access to enriched uranium and other substances. But let us take the worst case. Suppose he does develop nuclear weapons. Why does the theory of deterrence, on which we were all brought up, not apply to him? The argument must be that he is mad, but no one has suggested that.
Chemical agents, such as nerve gas, can inflict great localised damage to health and life, but they are useless over large areas and cannot be delivered in hulk to distant places. I am told that it takes one tonne of nerve gas to affect one square kilometre. In addition, there has been no successful instance of biological warfare. The scientists to whom I have talked are extremely sceptical about whether effective means of delivering biological agents exist or can be developed or how destructive their effects would be. The anthrax scare in the United States following 11th September resulted in one death. Except for nuclear weapons, therefore, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" seems to be a misnomer.
We must always remember that 9/11, horrendous though it was, involved no use of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is required to eliminate. Therefore, the logical link between terrorism and those weapons, either in the particular case of Saddam Hussein or in general, is actually quite weak.
In short, I suggest that by accepting without question the assumption that life with Saddam Hussein possessed of his "weapons" would be inconceivable, we would be guilty of worst-case thinking, based on faulty science. I had hoped that the eminent scientists we have in your Lordships' House would have chosen to take part in this debate, either to contradict or reinforce what I am saying.
918
I conclude by repeating my welcome for the resolution. I sincerely hope that M r Blix and his team will be able to report success. Both Iraq and the rest of the world would be better off without this man, without this regime and without these weapons in his possession.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He said that he wishes Mr Blix success. Will he define "success"?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords. I am about to do so. I was about to say that I am not persuaded that the world would he a significantly safer place if Mr Blix and his team achieved complete success. The conclusion that the world would not be a significantly safer place has to be balanced against the risks and destructiveness of war.
That leads me to my final thought. If, as I expect, the inspection regime is able to report only partial success in the form of the elimination of some weapons but not others, should this automatically be the occasion for war? I say that it should not. In those circumstances, we should be prepared to explore intermediate forms of coercion short of full-scale war. I do not believe that partial success would constitute failure. It would constitute failure in terms of Resolution 1441 and would be a possible trigger for war, but I suggest that it would not necessarily constitute failure. We could live with partial success. If we felt that we could not live with partial success, we should he prepared to pursue intermediate means of coercion short of full-scale war.
It would be immoral to make war on a foreign state unless it presented a clear and present danger to other states. Unless it did so, it would not be a just war. That is why the determination of peace, and war in this case, should be left to the Security Council and why we should continue to oppose any unilateral action by the United States.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I speak as n historian, of whom there are too few in this House, although I have the honour of following a most distinguished one. I am not an historian of the Middle East, although I once wrote of Suez, a book published by my dear noble friend Lord Weidenfeld who will speak later in the debate.
As an historian, I cannot forget the role of Britain in helping to break up the old Turkish Empire, a lamentable error, as it would now seem, as often used to be argued by the late Eli Kedourie, an historian whose family originated in Baghdad. We ought now also to remember our role in creating the new state of Iraq after 1918 and our part in establishing there our Hashemite friends as kings. Furthermore, we ought not to forget that the tragic Suez expedition of 1956 helped to create the conditions for the overthrow and murder of King Feisal and of Britain's best friend in the Middle East, Nuri-el-Said.
Going further back, it is not quite irrelevant to recall that at the 1920 Cairo conference on the Middle East, the then Colonial Secretary suggested the creation of

919
an autonomous Kurdish state as a buffer between Iraq and Turkey. The idea was mentioned, not favourably, in our debate today by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. However, I am sure that a Kurdish state will come about in the long run.
In 1920, the Colonial Secretary was, as we all can guess, opposed successfully by Sir Percy Cox and Dr Gertrude Bell. Those two civil servants had what used to be called "Alpha minds" and were well informed. But the Colonial Secretary, who had a premonition of the long-term future, was, if not an Alpha mind, a genius. His name was Winston Churchill.
I do not believe that in this House today we should entirely forget the work carried out by a great British scholar and archaeologist, Sir Leonard Woolley, in what is now Iraq but which was once Babylon, Nineveh and Ur. In any war in what used to be called Mesopotamia—Mespot to the British soldier in 1915—we should do whatever we can to avoid further ruin of the little which remains of those ancient civilisations.
To speak of the campaign of 1915 is not quite irrelevant since, if the regime of Saddam Hussein is overthrown, I hope that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will give every help to restore the cemetery of Basra where so many of General Townshend's unfortunate expedition of 1915 lie in graves which, according to The Times recently, have been desecrated.
One final point about the past. I am against appeasement in general, but I do not believe that invoking the examples of the 1930s is always helpful in the 21st century. Sometimes, I remind noble Lords, appeasement has worked. We appeased the Soviet Union, for example, for 40 years between 1945 and 1990 and in the end we won the Cold War.
Coming to the present, I, like perhaps most noble Lords, find it most satisfactory that any attack on Iraq (if there is to be one) will now take the form of something emanating from the United Nations. The fact that the Security Council voted for the severe United States draft resolution represents a victory, it would seem to me, for the US Secretary of State, for our ally France, for the British Prime Minister and the British delegation to the United Nations headed by the admirable Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Victory over what? It must be said to be a victory over those who believed in the desirability of a direct attack—a pre-emptive attack—on Iraq without previously obtaining the support of the United Nations. The idea of a pre-emptive attack had an attractive simplicity. Perhaps to some it still has. For no one can put forward coherently any defence of the regime in Iraq and few of us have any doubts about Iraq's willingness to use the chemical and biological weapons which it has—its regime has used them previously—even if there must be some doubt about its possible use of nuclear weapons.
920
But such a pre-emptive attack, mounted by the United States and perhaps supported by ourselves, surely would have been at variance with the policies and practices of this country since 1945. The only possible justification for such a direct attack would have been—might have been—if there were a proven connection between Iraq and Al'Qaeda. But no such proof has been forthcoming. I know that one should not endanger the forces of intelligence, but, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord King, would agree, intelligence must always be made to serve politics and not politics to serve intelligence.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will not take it amiss if I say that the support known to be given by Iraq to suicide bombers in Israel is not quite the same as approved support for Al'Qaeda, whose ambitions are global, as we saw only again this morning. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, if there is such a connection between Iraq and Al'Qaeda, it must be explained before any combat is embarked on which assumes the connection. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, could be right in saying that one can take the connection for granted or on trust, as he implied.
Even if such evidence were forthcoming, it would be reasonable to demand that it be presented to the United Nations, as President Kennedy, for example, presented the information about the establishment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962.
The United Nations, as all noble Lords, know, is a far from ideal body, but it does have many uses. Action under its auspices offers still a precious framework of law between states which, feeble though that law may sometime seem, is what our country, our European friends and the United States have been patiently trying to build up since 1945.
In 1945—I know I do not have to remind noble Lords—the UN was the achievement of the wartime coalition led by the very president whose condemnation of appeasement the noble Lord, Lord Black, so eloquently invoked earlier, and it was also the product of much hard work by the British wartime coalition led by the Colonial Secretary of 1920, Winston Churchill.
Surely, so far as the UN is concerned in the present crisis, the critical pass was crossed this month. The states members of the Security Council, named by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will surely, if necessary, vote again in favour of a strong resolution. Of course it is possible that UN approval may again be difficult to achieve and may be necessary to seek patiently, meticulously, as regards words, and carefully, as was done in respect of the resolution which we are discussing today. But that patience, that meticulousness with regard to words and that care is something which our Government, the United States Government—in general anyway—and our allies have shown we possess, making November 2002 a month in which the United Nations, often reviled, has been revived in an unexpected and positive way.
The noble Lord, Lord King—I hope that I do not misrepresent him; I am sure that he will tell me if I do—implied, also eloquently, from the heights of his long

921
experience in defence matters, that in our modern dangerous circumstances the spokesmen of western civilisation—the United States, Britain and our allies, or any allies that can be found—should be willing to act without UN approval if necessary. That could have been the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, and probably was of the noble Lord, Lord Black. I believe that those noble Lords are being too pessimistic, too negative. Surely if a report of the inspectors finds Saddam Hussein in breach of obligations which he assumed in 1991 and a case is presented for military action, it will be supported by the Security Council.
Action against Iraq's nuclear weapons programme is essentially a continuation of the uncompleted business of 1991. Iraq agreed to abandon that programme after its defeat in Kuwait. To possess, or to seek to possess, such weapons is not in itself—yet—an international crime. The Iraqi case is, in this respect, a matter apart.
So, in the long run, we should surely consider our long-term attitude to all these weapons. Until the end of the Cold War in 1989, we were, after all, committed to securing nuclear disarmament, even if we were not optimistic about the possibilities of achieving it. Thus, as I suggested in the Spectator last week, when this crisis is over, we, the United States and all our allies should give priority again to consideration of what we want in future in relation to all nuclear weapons, not only those of Iraq.
The United States is now able to assert itself as the most powerful state the world has ever seen. Richard Haas, who is now in the Bush Administration, wrote in the 1990s of the United States as a "reluctant" world sheriff. Perhaps, as I heard the former mayor of New York say only this week, the adjective "reluctant" is now, after September 11th last year, not quite so relevant.
But his country, the United States—our great ally—could j ustify what sometimes seems almost imperial—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but other noble Lords have been asked to keep to a target time and I should be grateful if he could wind up his speech.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, may I finish my sentence?
Baroness Crawley: Yes.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I hope it does not seem too long a sentence.
The United States could justify what sometimes seems its almost imperial—certainly imperious—assertions about its current destiny if it, if we, were to pursue a resolution of the global threat of nuclear weapons, which will continue whatever happens to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is clear that the Government, ably supported by Sir Jeremy Greenstock and his team in New York and, as my noble friend said, by many diplomats across the world, have played a pivotal role in reasserting multilateralism and the role of the UN and the Security Council. That is exactly how it should be and they are to be congratulated.
During a recent visit to Washington, I was struck by how much more pluralism was still alive, even within the US Administration itself, than is sometimes assumed on this side of the Atlantic. It is important never to undermine those within the US who share our multilateral commitment by simplistically lumping all Americans together and suggesting they are all in the camp of the unquestionably powerful but blinkered fundamentalist right. The challenge is always to work with those who share our sense of global reality and to strengthen their position.
In our dangerous and unpredictable world, stability and security cannot be imposed by the US alone, however powerful. The US is as vulnerable as any other nation. The extremist bubble in the lino syndrome becomes obvious—suppress it in one place and too easily it pops up in another—except that, because of alienation and resentment, there is a growing likelihood that in suppressing it in one place it will pop up in many others.
No, there are no short cuts. Peace and stability have to be painstakingly built. Hearts and minds have to be won. And widespread stakeholding in the stable world we want to see has to become a priority. Redistribution of wealth, greater social justice, sound environmental policies, fairer trade—all these have their key part to play. But these, without redistribution of power, will play into the hands of the alienated extremists and, yes, of the sinister psychopathic manipulators who are waiting for their opportunity to exploit a growing sense of frustration and exclusion.
In all this, the UN has become more relevant, not less. We must all seek to strengthen it. The UN is there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, to represent the authority of the glolbal community as a whole, not the authority of a minority of the global community over the rest.
But those of us who argue for multilateralism cannot just protest if unilateralism is contemplated when in the past multilateralism has too often proved weak or ineffective. We have to ensure that in future collective action is effective. In particular, we have to ensure that it is effective in time, wherever possible, making the ultimate use of force—war, in other words—unnecessary.
That is why I am convinced that a strong resolution, in which a firm willingness to use force if need be is spelt out, was so important at the Security Council. Multilateralism cannot be left to vacuous resolutionary politics. It has to be muscular and any necessary resolutions have to be convincing, establishing not only a determination to achieve the

923
stated objective but also a determination to do whatever is required to achieve it. Anything less ill serves the cause of multilateralism.
While I fully appreciate what my noble friend said about the need not to speculate on all the possibilities, there are nevertheless some important questions which I, like other noble Lords, hope my noble friend Lord Bach will answer. How secure is the work by the UN inspectors? Is the operation adequately resourced and funded? If not, why not? The cost of a well resourced inspection is minimal against the cost of war.
When the 8th December return by the Government of Iraq is made on their weapons of mass destruction, will it be the task of the UN inspectors to establish its accuracy? Or do the United States and the UK governments reserve the right to reject it as inaccurate there and then on the grounds of their interpretation of the intelligence independently available to them?
If the return is rejected by the US and UK, will their interpretation of their own intelligence be shared with the Security Council as a whole? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, referred to this issue. Would they then make the case for immediate military action? If they did, what would be the implications for the inspectors? Is it or is it not the task of the inspectors, in effect, to check the accuracy of the US and UK interpretation of their own intelligence as well as to investigate the accuracy of the return submitted by the Government of Iraq?
All this surely underlines the significance of whether or not further specific Security Council authorisation for military action is required. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will once more return to this issue and leave the House in absolutely no doubt of the Government's position. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, spoke powerfully in this context.
As I understand it, the Government's position is that they would favour a further resolution if military action was to be taken. Am I right? But, as I understand it, the Government are also signalling that they reserve the right to review the situation and to act independently, with the US and others, if they are convinced that such military action has become necessary but the Security Council is not prepared to go along that road. Is that right as well?
I should like to put one more question to my noble friend. If there were to be UN military action, would it not be the task of the Secretary-General to call up the necessary military forces on behalf of the Security Council? I was a little perplexed when it seemed that last week the United States might still see it as its responsibility to do this.
If military action is contemplated, the political analysis and strategy—the context—become all the more relevant. The noble Baroness. Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to this point, as did other speakers. Just what are the global and regional implications? What are the political consequences? What will
924
follow? What resources will be needed for reconstruction, and are they being guaranteed? How will human rights and the innocent he protected?
As we all know, perceptions become political facts. How, therefore, will counter-productivity be avoided'? How, for example, will any perception of confrontation with Islam per se be avoided? How will it be demonstrated beyond doubt that any military action is not really about access to oil resources?
Above all, within the political strategy, what precisely will be the war aims? We are told that they would be to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and not directly to change the regime. But in Iraq, as has been repeatedly stressed, we are dealing with a ruthless, cruel, dangerous, sinister and calculating regime. There is no doubt about that. How, therefore, do we avoid playing into its hands by winning a vital tactical objective of disarmament, but at the price of alienating and driving into the arms of power hungry extremists still more millions across the world'? How do we avoid fanning the flames of Islamic militancy?
Consistency is imperative. We would be profoundly misguided if we failed to see the connection between our policy on Iraq and that on the Middle East as a whole. No one can condone terrorism by Palestinian extremists. But why are the extremists able to set the agenda? There is no doubt that this is to no small extent because the outside world has failed to deal effectively with the injustices perpetrated by Israel. What we do in Iraq will be seen by millions against what we have not done elsewhere in the Middle East. It will also be seen against our opportunist arms and economic dealings with corrupt regimes whose days are numbered. Indeed, we cannot escape the United Kingdom's own deep and devious involvement in building up the military strength of Iraq in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq conflict, even after the regime had used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 of its own citizens in 1988. No, consistency is at a premium in global politics. Its absence in the past means that the chickens are now coming home to roost.
We have to take seriously the research of organisations such as Saferworld—of which I am privileged to be a trustee—and ISIS. We need to be strengthening, not eroding, our control of arms exports and arms brokering. We need to ask ourselves whether or not we are convincingly working towards a world free of weapons of mass destruction, or whether we seem to be settling for a world in which some states are allowed to retain such weapons but others are not. Why is Israel OK when Iran is not—especially when Israel has refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?
Surely, it starts with us. How can the existing principal nuclear powers persuade the world that they are serious about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction when they give too many indications of a determination to hang on to their own nuclear weapons and when, for example, the United States has insisted upon its right to be able to veto challenge inspections of US chemical facilities?

925
Multilateralism—to which the Government have commendably committed themselves—is not about the powerful using international institutions and arrangements to dominate the world. It is about building global commitment to the effective policies which humanity must pursue if it is to survive. That means demonstrating our own commitment to what is necessary, not just demanding that commitment of others.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord King mentioned the quality of our military equipment that might be committed to a full-scale war in Iraq—and I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that there is no inevitability as regards military action.
Equipment is a vital issue to young servicemen and servicewomen, particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's comment that he would be willing to pay a -blood price" to resolve the situation in Iraq. I look forward to assurances from the Minister that they will not be sent away—possibly to their deaths—with second-rate equipment and clothing. I know that he, personally, takes this matter very seriously and will answer in the best way he can, mindful that surprise is the key advantage.
While making preparations for a possible war against Saddam Hussein, we must also be planning how to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. I hope that the Government are conducting a very serious assessment of the humanitarian impact of any future conflict. NGOs are reviewing contingency planning and their role. Understandably, plans are not being made public for fear of de-stabilising the current situation.
The end-game, rightly, is the eradication of weapons of mass destruction. But we must be prepared to mitigate any humanitarian fall-out in the event of conflict. We must also ensure a principled and effective response to any humanitarian crisis after the conflict is over. Our permanent membership of the Security Council, and of the European Union, and proximity to the US Administration, make us uniquely positioned to help. In addition, we are the second largest bilateral humanitarian donor in real terms.
The humanitarian situation in Iraq is dire. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, pointed out that 14 million Iraqis are dependent on food aid.
The regime of Saddam Hussein is culpable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women and children, through systematically denying them food and medicine, and subjecting them to the most gruesome chemical and biological attacks.
If there is a war, Iraq's infrastructure is expected to be targeted, including power stations. A lack of power is likely to cause a serious epidemic, as there would be no way of treating water. The international community must then work together to avoid the rapid spread of infectious diseases, such as cholera and
926
typhoid. In addition, vaccines and blood banks could become ineffective as both products need to be stored in a cool environment.
United Nations overseas staff will be evacuated, and the humanitarian agencies will be winding down just at the time when they are most needed. It is vital. therefore, that the military and NGOs work closely together as early as possible.
Post-war reconstruction is vital, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out. A great deal of work in repairing bridges and roads will need to be done before NGOs can start to work, which will severely hamper the humanitarian effort.
I hope that consideration is being given, in the event of a conflict, to informing the Iraqi people of the ongoing humanitarian issues using the BBC's Arabic Service. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, winning the peace is as important as winning the war. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly said that hearts and minds have to be won.
The probability that Saddam Hussein will use chemical and/or biological weapons, possibly on his own people, possibly to try to save himself, is a major concern to servicemen and servicewomen and to their families. I assume that there will be sufficient vaccine to immunise against the effects of NBC all service personnel and reservists who may be deployed to Iraq. However, troops will need assurances that lessons have been learnt from problems over Gulf War syndrome, and that any side-effects of interaction between the various vaccines are properly understood.
I accept that, for security reasons, the Minister will be careful in any response that he may give.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, in this, the first week of the countdown on Iraq, I was forcefully struck by two different messages. In an Al'Qaeda videotape, a voice, credibly that of bin Laden, threatened us with terrible vengeance if we used force against Saddam's Iraq. In a letter to the editor of The Times, an ordinary Iraqi living in London quoted President Bush's vow—echoed by the Prime Minister—that liberty for the Iraqi people is not only a great moral cause but also a great strategic goal. He adds:
"I was very hopeful that the day my country was freed from oppression was getting closer but the language seems to be changing".
He concludes:
"America should not abandon the moral cause it believed in only two months ago".
We all hope that the inspectors will flex their muscles. Dr Blix lauded the atmosphere of collegiality so far discernible in Baghdad. Somebody suggested that the idea of flying scientists out of Iraq for interviews with their families might prove impracticable and be regarded by the Iraqis as constructive desertion. Are those signs of softening attitudes to the inspectors' mandate?
I wish to confirm something that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said. Four years of interruption have given the Iraqis a tremendous lead time for

927
concealment. There are reliably more than 6,000 full-time Iraqi personnel charged with hiding and securing sensitive assets and sites. They face 80 to 100 inspectors who will only be fully operational by Christmas. There is an aura of ambiguity about what will constitute noncompliance. Over all this uncertainty hovers the delicate phrase "regime change".
In the heated debate about a possible military intervention, most European governments make clear that they would prefer a process of ongoing altercation and reasoning with the regime in Baghdad to any show of force. In the case of compliance, Saddam would not be dislodged, and, as to his future, speculations diverge. Some think that, once de-fanged, his humiliation would lead to his downfall and he would be overthrown internally. Others hope that, even earlier, he might he persuaded to emigrate like Idi Amin, Baby Doc Duvalier or, more respectably, King Faruk and the Shah of Iran.
History negates the proposition that a defeated dictator in the Arab world is necessarily discredited. Gamal Nasser was grimly beaten in the Six-Day War. his airforce destroyed in hours and his army crippled in three days; yet he lived on, not only staying in power, but becoming a romantic legend in the Arab world. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and find myself in a rare show of disagreement with my dear noble friend Lord Thomas.
Saddam Hussein as a survivor, remaining in his seat of power, will be a mighty magnet for terrorists of every hue, hailed as the man who won the 30 years' war against the Goliath of the West. The war on terror would be intensified rather than diminished, and relations between the USA and Europe would worsen. A stampede of fawning entrepreneurs bidding for his favours would make him a triumphant hero.
In one way, time is on Saddam Hussein's side. Economic downturn in the Western world, a state of suspense and nervous unease all detract from the zeal to punish a culprit and effect seismic changes in the neighbourhood. European attitudes to the Iraqi opposition tend to be coloured by this ambivalence so, consciously or subconsciously. the significance and effectiveness of this opposition is constantly played down. I quote a great expert on the Middle East, Professor Bernard Lewis, who takes the view that the opposition is potentially much more effective than we believe it to be. Are those opposing forces to be let down again?
The obverse side of the great blessings of democratic transparency is that hand-wringing and agonising in public are eagerly noted by Saddam and the whole international camaraderie of terror and appeasement. They all have fine-tuned ears. Browsing through the abundant literature of protest against President Bush, it is a strange feeling for some of us who have lived through the age of dictators and the Munich crisis that there is so much thunder on the Left and passion in the liberal centre for policies that would preserve the most heinous illiberal regimes, and that it takes a Right-wing Republican American President to stand up for the unseating of criminal despots.
928
I say this in the full knowledge of the welter of conflicting strategic, commercial and self-seeking national interests that lie at the root of the complex issues relating to the Iraqi problem. But it is broadly true that a regime change in Iraq, with all the perils it might entail, is preferable to the present impasse that harbours future catastrophes to humanity. Should the inspection lead to peaceful change through compliance, the world will sigh with relief. But should Saddam Hussein defend his nefarious assets, hidden or revealed, for the sake of which he sacrificed reliably more than 150 billion dollars and pauperised his people, we must not stand in the path of those who argue for punitive action, preferably, but not necessarily, with the consent of the United Nations.
In all diffidence, and with full respect, this great institution has in its 50-odd years performed many outstanding feats in the service of mankind. But, alas, mankind, according to a great philosopher, is made of crooked timber. So, too, is the United Nations. It is an institution that, with all its great achievements, suffers from serious shortcomings. By dint of geographic rotation, Colonel Gaddafi of Libya may become head of a commission on human rights. Syria, with a regime that lags behind that of Iraq in material wealth but not in moral turpitude, may preside over the Security Council. States practising vivisection or genocide may sit in judgment over which governments practise racism or lack a civil society.
If the United States feels that the security of her people and the civilised world to whose open society she has contributed so richly is to be seriously endangered, she will act. I hope that the British Government and other governments would not stand in the way, and that they would participate in the pursuit of what the Iraqi correspondent to The Times described as a "moral cause".
4.46 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have had a very good debate. I wish to respond to some comments, notably those of the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Judd. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, invited us to indulge in a flawed experiment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, gave us a historical account and asked some pertinent questions, as did my noble friend Lord Judd.
I welcome Resolution 1441. Having carried out expert consultation with my neighbours, it seems that this is only the third time in the history of the United Nations that there has been a Chapter VII resolution. I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but, as far as I know, the Korean War and the Gulf War are the only two previous instances of a Chapter VII resolution. Resolution 1441 is very special; it is unlike any other resolution. The fact that, after much negotiation, Resolution 1441 was arrived at unanimously implies that it is not just the US or the UK, but many countries, who regard the threat of Saddam Hussein seriously.
People ask: why is Saddam being singled out? Why now? What harm would it do if we did not pursue him? I do not know the answers to all those questions. But

929
if a Chapter VII resolution has been arrived at, which does not happen often—this is not a UN Chapter VI resolution, which can be, and is frequently, ignored—the situation is serious. Why is this so? Why are the Americans so sensitive about compliance with this resolution? I tried to address this question in my speech in the debate on the Address. I will briefly repeat my point. America is the only superpower because of both its economic and defence strength. But, at the moment, America is feeling very fragile as a result of 11th September.
I do not know whether your Lordships remember seeing the film "King Kong". King Kong was a nice gentle giant, but if aroused he became rather disturbed and went slashing all around. America is in a similarly delicate position. It is hard to believe that it is simultaneously both a very powerful nation and a very fragile one. It regards the particular event of 9/11 as unique and prioritises its own self-defence above everything else, including all the other programmes that my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned for creating a peaceful world, eliminating poverty, improving the environment and so on. There are many reasons for that, some of which are sound.
The world must be able to come to the help of this fearful giant and tell it that we shall not ignore its need for reassurance in its fragility. This may sound strange, but. I have been reading literature and talking to people from the United States and that is the vision that emerges. That is why it is important that 1441 was passed, keeping America within the multilateral family. I add my tributes to the many others that have been paid to the Prime Minister on that.
At the same time, it is important not to forget the seriousness of 1441. My noble friend Lord Judd talked about muscular mull ilateralism—more in hope than in experience, I think, considering the record of the United Nations. During the Cold War it did very little, being stymied by the counter vetoes of the two great powers. Since 1991, we have had one successful multilateral intervention in the Gulf War, but we failed to gel a United Nations resolution on Kosovo. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, disagrees, but I still believe that it was right that we intervened in Kosovo and stopped the genocide that was going on. Let us clearly face the fact that had we waited for a United Nations Chapter VII resolution, like we have got on Iraq, by now many more people would have died and perhaps Milosevic would still be in power and people would still he reasoning with him to change his ways.
There is a distinct possibility that a material breach will occur. If it does, we, together with other non-US members of the Security Council, will have to take that seriously on board and not make new excuses and alternatives just to postpone the evil day. If that happens, the United States will definitely lose its fragile faith in the UN. We could not blame a country for losing that faith if it genuinely felt its self-defence was at stake.
When a material breach occurs, our main task will be to try to follow up with a second resolution based on fairly muscular multilateralism that will deliver on
930
the threat it has made. If a UN resolution is not obeyed, the United Nations should act on that and not pass another resolution that says, "Well, we know you did not obey that one, but you almost obeyed it, so we shall give you another chance not to obey us again, and perhaps we will really, really mean it this time".
What my noble friend Lady Ramsay said is very important. I am not saying this just to make an excuse. The most important aspect of the Saddam regime to me is not even its weapons of mass destruction, but its record of torture and violation of human rights. I read that when the current Prime Minister took office in 1997, doing something about Iraq was on his list of priorities, both because of its continued flouting of previous UN resolutions and because of its record on torture and human rights.
Even if 9/11 had not happened—and whatever the connections between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein may be—the world community would have had to come to thinking seriously about regimes that violate human rights to such an intolerable extent. The United Nations failed miserably in Rwanda. In a sense it also failed in Kosovo, but, thank God, other people acted. There are some vile regimes in the world, but when it comes to violation of human rights Saddam Hussein is special. If those violations continue, the world will have to devise for its muscular multilateralism some code of intervention for countries that, although they may be sovereign, should not be allowed to violate human rights in that way.
Finally, we ought to guard against the speculation by Richard Perle and others in America that after this war America will redraw the map of the Middle East. There are big utopian ideas that the Hashemites will go hack to Iraq and all the Palestinians will be thrown out of Palestine and put into Jordan. In the Gulf War in 1992, only the UN resolutions' objectives were achieved and no further activity was carried out in Iraq, such as going into Baghdad. We must strongly urge the United States that we ought to stick to the UN resolution again this time. If it is achievable without a war, fine, but if not, we should attempt only to achieve that and nothing else.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, who has demonstrated that often the fairer sex have perhaps a better understanding of these events. She has spoken on everything to do with Iraq with directness, frankness and openness, on a nonpolitical basis. I congratulate her more than I would her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who sometimes shows the soles of his feet in the Arab world, which is not really acceptable, or even the Prime Minister. Today I am trying to focus my mind on what we are here for. I assume it is to try to find the formula whereby we can achieve the disarmament of Iraq and its reintroduction into the international community, setting all things aside. Here there are certain unanswered questions and areas of confusion.
I have declared my involvement before. We were the principal bankers to the Government of Iraq. For many years I went backwards and forwards. Probably

931
even today I am one of the few who has been there frequently. I like the Iraqi people. I understand something of their history. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I have a brief quote for him from the letters of Gertrude Bell:
"We treat Mesop—
not Mespot—
"as if it were an isolated political unit, instead of which it is part of Arabia, its politics indissolubly connected with the great and far reaching Arab question".
Let us put the great and far-reaching Arab question aside and return to where we are now. What are the motives and objectives of those involved? The noble Lord, Lord Black, has just left the Chamber, probably because I was to remind him that we have never thought of the United States as a great St Bernard dog. Has he ever had the difficulty of holding a great St Bernard dog on a lead when it smells a bitch on heat? He is in danger of suggesting that the United States is now a free-ranging rottweiler. That is his view. He spoke in the same way last time he contributed. As your Lordships may know, I have many family in the United States and was partly brought up over there.
My first question relates to the Gulf War and what ultimately happened. We are dealing with a strong man and a strong regime—two qualities the Arab world likes because it has often known nothing else. The problems arise when there is a weak regime. Why did we stop after we managed to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait? There are many views on the subject. The first is that the mandate from the UN only allowed us to take him out of Kuwait, and that was it. Secondly, there is the belief that we did not want to be seen on television screens to be killing lots of innocent Iraqi citizens. Thirdly, there is the view that the Americans did not want to have any body bags; and, fourthly, the fear that, if they got nearer to Baghdad, the chemical warfare might open up. I am not sure that the Minister will be able to deal with that question today, but I should rather like to know the answer sometime. Indeed, the Iraqis themselves are slightly confused, because they saw a weak chink in the armour.
Now we find ourselves in a very difficult position. We need to know why Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, could refer, as I do, to Section 5, or whatever, of the anti-terrorism Bill, which lists all the pathogens. If you analyse them all, as I asked people to do, it appears that none of them alone can create mass destruction. To some extent they are terrifying, but only in the quantities that exist in that country. As noble Lords, will remember, when the allies, if I may call them that, began to bomb Baghdad from England, the Americans would not come to London because they thought that they could be bombed from Baghdad. There are many prejudices and doubts involved.
I want to know why Saddam Hussein and his regime are keeping up this game. Perhaps it is because, as we know, the Iraqis play poker from the age of about four or five. There is a poker game going on during which masses of chips are being added to each person's bank,
932
with no day of reckoning. There must be a day of reckoning, and that day is now. It is not just a UN resolution; it is something deeper. Unless we can return Iraq to an acceptable status that will enable it to join the international community, many opportunities will be lost. I still cannot understand what is going on.
When I used to visit Iraq, I found that the regime was getting stronger and stronger over a period of about 30 years, and that, logically, all opposition had been eliminated. Sometimes I would adopt something of a socialist attitude, and say "Where is Mr So and So?" "He is no longer with us", was often the response. I did not realise at first that the words "no longer with us" meant not just that he was no longer in the ministry but that he was in another place—a superior place! Over time I have noticed the disappearance of many people who I may or may not have known either directly or indirectly: they have been eliminated. So in Iraq at present there is no opposition.
Let us just imagine the scenario that a good poker player would put forward; namely, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that there would be a call in Baghdad for free and open elections. The Council of Europe would then send a delegation to the country and everyone would inspect everything and, suddenly, we would find that Saddam Hussein was elected with a full majority because there was no opposition. That sort of thing is possible, though it is not the same as the situation in Zimbabwe. We know that strong leaders do use the death threat. Iraq over time—that is, over centuries—has suffered from that strong leadership and persecution. It goes way back into the mists of time. Let us not forget that it was meant to be the original headquarters of the Tower of Babel, which I am told never in fact existed.
My worry is that if we do not move now, we shall be seen as being weak. I do not believe in any more resolutions that go running around through the United Nations, nor do I believe in allowing the United States to put itself into the position of being the world's enemy for the rest of this century by taking unilateral action. The resources are difficult. The bald eagle may believe that it can achieve success just by bombing from the skies, and that is possible. We may go for a full war at the end of the day where we say that we are not planning to remove a regime, which is what has been said, and that we are not on an anti-terrorist war. But I have never understood it when people talk about the war of terrorism; it is sometimes like the "War on Want" or the "War on Pollution". It is not a real war: it is a battle.
So what will happen next, and what is the end game? The Iraqis must be left in absolutely no doubt of the seriousness of this resolution and of those who support it. They must see no weakness, no chink in the armour. No one must introduce factors such as a link to world terrorism. It is straightforward "go for the throat". They must give up what they have. But what will they receive in return? If I were young enough. I would be out in Baghdad again looking at the fantastic potential of the country both industrially and agriculturally; and, indeed, as regards oil.

933
Iraq could very quickly produce 8 million barrels of oil a day. It has always worried the Saudis that it holds the whole reserves that could be put on stream in a world conflict, and they do not like that because it makes them feel insecure. With my permission to speak, I have had the doubtful privilege of meeting many people to discuss economic matters and how they could pay for the war bearing in mind all the obligations that they have from the Gulf War. One suggestion I made was that they should just hand it hack to the British. I said, "Give us the oil fields. We will discuss it with the Bank England and pay off your debts. We'll sort it out and finance your industrial redevelopment. But, for goodness sake, give up this charade that you want to have weapons to attack someone. Who do you want to attack?"
Then you get the classic answer. The right hand goes across the left breast and the official says, "Excellency, I am not authorised to discuss this at my level". I respond by asking, "Were you trained with the Midland Bank like me?", because that is the sort of thing you expect. Then the next official responds in the same way. Finally, you meet a minister, or member of the revolutionary command council, and the same response is made. After the minister's initial "Hello", which is delivered with no smile at all, the rhetoric begins. It comes in the whining voice of the interpreter. "His Excellency says that your Excellency is a lackey of capitalist imperialistic pro-Zionist policies that have destroyed the stability of the world and caused the death of many innocent women and children". That discourse goes on for another 20 minutes after which you have your turn. I have learnt to give a rhetoric that makes me cringe even to think about it. I have used words that I would never dare use in your Lordships' House. After my response, we smile and are friends.
It is possible that the friendship with Iraq could return if the Iraqis could be persuaded to realise that they have a chance, economically, of being a greater nation than they ever can be militarily.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am glad that we have been given another opportunity to debate Iraq, and the prospect of a possible war. I participated in the special debate held on 24th September. I then commenced my contribution by saying that I was opposed to war with Iraq. I continue to hold that view, although I am just a little more optimistic about the possibility of avoiding war than I was at that time. There is at least the UN resolution that we are discussing this afternoon, and inspectors are back in Iraq. So far, they have been able to say that there is full co-operation with the Iraqi authorities. But concerns remain.
The resolution is a tough one. It is clear that some United States' politicians want to be able to claim "material breaches" so that they can go to war. Some examples of the rhetoric involved were quoted this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. There is talk of the possibility of Saddam Hussein "playing games". In the mean time, the United States and ourselves are continuing to bomb Iraq. There is
934
apparently no UN mandate for these raids. Indeed, Kofi Annan's spokesman made it clear in a recent television interview that other members of the Security Council had never supported the so-called "no fly zones". It was, therefore, not possible to agree with the claims made by some US spokesmen that firing by the Iraqis at the planes was a breach of UN resolutions. If that is so, it seems to me that the Iraqis are within their rights in firing on the planes, as the UN charter permits countries to act in self-defence. A violation of what the Iraqis see as their air space. plus the bombing, must surely count as aggressive actions against which they are entitled to defend themselves.
But we live in a world where nations as powerful as the United States may do as they please with little hindrance. Other countries do not want to offend the United States. Of course, if America wants to go to war with Iraq, everyone knows that it will eventually do so. It does not really need the support of others, alt hough plainly President Bush would prefer to have that support, if only to silence his domestic critics. And those critics do exist. A1'Gore has been extremely critical and has apparently refused to be silenced even by elements in the hierarchy of his own party, the Democrats. There are also other well-known critics.
I remain against a war. I am horrified at the casual way in which the possibility of war is often discussed. We are told that if Saddam Hussein does not cooperate he must be disarmed by force. I sometimes think that our present ruling elites—and not just political elites but the elites who run our media—do not entirely understand what war entails. Mostly they are too young to remember the last war, and that is why they sometimes make the ludicrous comparison of Saddam with Hitler. Those who are against the war are accused of appeasement. That kind of talk really does annoy me: it undervalues the courage of the generation who fought that war against Hitler. Hitler's Panzer divisions threatened the whole of Europe. We knew, when Hitler was finally challenged, what had to be faced. In schools, gas masks were handed out; we hung them round our necks in boxes. Air raid shelters were built in suburban gardens. We expected and we got prolonged aerial bombardment.
Iraq is a battered country. After two major wars, punitive sanctions for a decade and constant bombing, the idea that it is capable of threatening ourselves or the United States is absurd. Nor is there any evidence of a link with A1'Qaeda. No one expects to see Iraqi bombing planes over London, and the few Scud missiles Iraq possesses are no threat to us. Many people in this country understand that. They are unwilling to be dragged into a war at the behest of the United States. This feeling is widespread across Europe. The French and German Governments take the line they have because of public opinion in their countries. Yet, we are being manoeuvred in this country into an acceptance of the view that war is almost bound to happen.
There is constant emphasis on the unpleasant character of Saddam Hussein. Many of his past sins took place when he was an ally of the United States and receiving financial support plus weaponry from

935
America. He is not the first tyrant to be supported when it suited and then demonised when it did not. Moreover, by concentrating on Saddam Hussein and his atrocities—and there are other atrocious regimes in the world—attention is diverted from the undoubted fact that war will be fought against the Iraqi people. They will be the sufferers, as if they had not suffered enough already.
We are told that there is no quarrel with the Iraqi people, but we know from past experience that the war will start with a massive air attack. Remember how shocked—indeed devastated—we were when the Bali terrorist bomb killed 180 mostly young people? That was high explosive in a car. Is it really imagined that high explosive dropped from a fleet of planes flying at 15,000 or 20,000 feet is somehow less destructive of human beings? No, if there is a war with Iraq, the Bali bomb casualties will be replicated over and over and over again. We shall be told about targeting: that it is possible with "smart" bombs to target accurately so that civilian casualties are minimised. Well, that did not happen in Kosovo, where schools and hospitals were hit as well as the Chinese embassy, and cluster bombs were used on the civilian population of towns such as Nis. Nor did it happen in the last Gulf War, when 400 mainly mothers and children sheltering in a large bunker in Baghdad died as the result of a direct hit.
It is not only those immediately killed or injured; the civilian infrastructure is usually destroyed as well, leaving the unfortunate inhabitants without clean water and lacking in power supplies. Food supplies are also affected, as we saw in Afghanistan. People who often have not much anyway lose whatever they have as their dwellings are destroyed. They become homeless refugees in their own country. Yes, for a civilian population, modern war is a truly terrifying prospect. With Iraq, there is also the possible destabilising effect on surrounding countries.
Only in the most extreme circumstances should war be even contemplated. In my view, those circumstances do not exist in relation to Iraq. I have no doubt that the United States, with its vast technological superiority, can win a war and occupy Iraq. But what then? And what about existing commitments in Afghanistan and in the Balkans? What about the cost of such a war? The world economy is already in recession. Those who were persuaded to invest in the stock market in the 1990s have seen the value of their investments go into sharp decline. War is unlikely to aid recovery. War has to be paid for. But most important of all, there is the cost in lives.
For those reasons, I am glad that a few points have been made quite strongly in this debate—that the statement contained in Resolution 1441 does not automatically lead to war; that there will be a necessity to go back to the United Nations Security Council to discuss what should happen even if there is an allegation of a material breach; and that that does not automatically lead to a military intervention. I believe that there are other means of dealing with this
936
situation which have been dealt with very eloquently by other speakers. I hope that we take every possible step to ensure that the situation is resolved without military conflict.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the nearer we get to the brink of war with Iraq, the louder are the humanitarian voices being raised outside Parliament, especially among the non-governmental organisations and the Churches. Some have warned against war itself, and we have just heard a very sincere example of that, but the most recent warnings have come from those who anticipate the consequences of war both for the Iraqi people and for the Middle East as a whole.
While I strongly support United Nations Resolution 1441 as a means of cajoling the Iraqi leadership into co-operation. I am well aware of the real differences which remain among the UN members over the necessity of a second resolution. Having heard Richard Perle in the Committee Room upstairs last week describe the work of weapons inspectors as a more or less pointless exercise, I can foresee another inevitable split in the next round of the Security Council in which France and Russia once again try to pull us out of our happy honeymoon with the United States. I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in his description of the United States as a kind of warm, cuddly teddy bear; that is just not the image that I have. Given that the United States will be prepared to go it alone and ignore any further resolutions, I fully expect Britain to join the campaign. However, I personally cannot recommend it unless there is a further meaningful resolution.
My noble friend Lord Thomas questioned the assumption made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about a connection with A1'Qaeda. I think that we all look forward to hearing the Government's view on that. I certainly do not believe that the case for such a connection is convincing.
I spoke in the Queen's Speech debate about our neglect of our wider obligations to the coalition against terrorism and to our friends in the Middle East. I am against any kind of appeasement. However, I recognise the differences between this war and the air strikes against the Taliban a year ago. I look forward to hearing the comments of my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall on that subject. It is not possible to win an Iraq war without a ground war, and the number of civilian casualties is bound to be much greater than that in Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has already outlined a part of the grim humanitarian scene in the event of war. I should like to quote from a Christian Aid statement of 22nd November, and I declare an interest as a trustee. Christian Aid states:
"If there is war, Iraq's poorest communities, already suffering as a result of government policies"—
which makes it clear that the suffering is caused by government policies—
"weakened by years of conflict and undermined by economic sanctions, will be among the first to suffer. There are currently 700,000 Iraqi people who have been made homeless in their own

937
country. Military action, as well as potentially resulting in a loss of civilian life, could force more people to leave their homes and become cut off from their food supplies.
The international community has an obligation to plan for and implement an effective humanitarian response, which guarantees resources and access to independent assistance for all those in need".
I therefore hope that the Minister does have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
I could repeat several similar statements from CARE International, Save the Children, the Middle East Council of Churches and many other organisations that are now working in Iraq, both in the Kurdish area and in Baghdad. The Caritas figures have already been quoted. Those organisations say that leaving aside the thousands of casualties from military action, the consequences of war for children under 14, who now constitute almost half the population, are almost unimaginable. Children who are already chronically malnourished—an estimated one n five—would face death from hunger or ill-health. Children in some urban areas would be instantly deprived of water and other services, let alone health and education. Food distribution by the World Food Programme and the NGOs under the nationwide Oil For Food programme would simply come to a halt.
It is easy to forget that Iraq is not a developing country like Afghanistan, although Saddam Hussein has done his best to make it so. It has a highly sophisticated infrastructure and technical capacity, as weapons inspectors know all too well. That also means that the scale of any destruction will be proportionately greater and will have a more devastating effect in Iraq. The civil service, although seriously underpaid, includes many with high standards of training in education and professional skills. Those people cannot run the country without an adequate infrastructure and properly functioning services. Essential spare parts, even now, for hospitals, schools, pumping stations and water supplies are lacking to the point at which a nursing sister cannot even find a spare light bulb. That is where sanctions have already failed: they failed to hurt the rulers of Iraq and, worst of all, they have succeeded in hurting the people who are already suffering enough.
It is true that the Oil For Food programme has been improved, as have the smart sanctions under Security Council Resolution 1409, which was passed in May last year. Despite the efforts of the various UN panels, those changes have not solved the fundamental challenge of keeping people alive and children healthy.
I accept that Resolution 1441 has been a great landmark for the United Nations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, it has enhanced the authority of the United Nations, which we should all welcome. Here I pay tribute to the UN Secretary-Gene ral, Kofi Annan. While much has been said about our Prime Minister's role in restraining the US President and reminding him of his international obligations—in case he had forgotten them—few recognise how much success is due to the personality and perseverance of the Secretary-General and his
938
staff over many years. He achieved the latest resolution, I suggest, much against his own inclination.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as always, made the important connection between Iraq and the Middle East; some of us did so during our debate on the Queen's Speech. I was encouraged that the Foreign Secretary gave more space to the Middle East peace process in his opening remarks on Monday. Some of that was echoed by the noble Baroness the Minister this morning. That is a welcome trend in government statements. There are signs that the Americans recognise that the Middle East may be part of the price for our support. There is an important difference between our position and that of the United States. I hope that that is the case. However, there is not much movement in the peace process. We have many words about progress from the Foreign Secretary and the noble Baroness the Minister but we do not see any movement. We should not expect very much to happen before the elections but at the same time those elections in the Middle East are no excuse for inaction. Finally, a Government who have just doubled their arms exports to Israel are hardly in a position to convince the British public, let alone the Palestinians, that they are making progress towards a lasting peace settlement.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am among the many in your Lordships' House and throughout the country who have no love for Saddam Hussein but who do not see the pressing need for a war on Iraq at present. There are better and less destructive ways of persuading a country to disarm than threatening to pulverise it with vastly superior airpower and then to invade it, however distasteful its regime. In that regard, I seem to differ from my noble friend Lord Desai.
As my noble friend Lady Symons said, Security Council Resolution 1441 gives us and Saddam Hussein a window of opportunity to achieve peaceful disarmament despite, perhaps, its rather draconian wording. I agree with the Liberal Democrat amendment, which received 85 votes in another place on Monday: when UNMOVIC reports early next year, the situation should be reassessed by the Security Council and a further resolution passed before any military action is launched. That was the Russian and French position initially, and also that of the Syrians, which they changed only after intensive discussions with US representatives. Many believe that both carrot and stick methods of persuasion were used. Even now those governments believe that the Security Council should carefully consider the situation again before a US-led attack is endorsed.
I am glad that my noble friend was able to confirm the statement that the Foreign Secretary made in the debate in the Commons on Monday; that is, that the UK also takes that position. He even went so far as to say that a second resolution would be desirable if' it were possible. Despite strongly supporting the American position publicly—perhaps too strongly for many people—the Prime Minister, the Foreign

939
Secretary and our ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock and his team at the UN, have been quietly successful in moderating the US position. They did so by persuading them first to work through the United Nations route, leading to SCR 1441, but also to agree that there should be further Security Council deliberation before any military action is taken.
However, the hawks in the clearly divided US Administration, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lord Judd referred, are still powerful. I am afraid that the American public and the American Congress have been groomed to support a war. I was one of a number of noble Lords and Members of Parliament—several other noble Lords have mentioned this—who heard Richard Perle, the chairman of the US defence policy board, speak in Committee Room 9 last week. Like many others present, I was somewhat alarmed by his position. He said that even if Hans Blix and UNMOVIC do not detect any weapons of mass destruction or destroy all those that they do detect, he would not be satisfied that Iraq was not hiding further stocks somewhere. Dick Cheney has said much the same thing. He implied that an attack was inevitable although of course he stopped short—only just short—of saying that explicitly. He also said, partly in jest, that only if Saddam were to adopt the US constitution would there be enough of a regime change for the United States to allow him to remain in power and avert a military confrontation. He also played down the effect that a military strike would have on the people of Iraq because of the greatly increased accuracy of American weapons and smart bombs, which he said would he used only on military targets and communications systems. He was confident that Iraqi troops would quickly lay down their arms when confronted by overwhelming US air power. He seemed to think an urban battle for Baghdad unlikely. But even if a war were to end quickly, the damage to the country's infrastructure and the impact on its people would be profound. My noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, amplified that.
In 1991, immediately after the Gulf War but before sanctions had begun to bite, a United Nations report was produced by Martti Ahtisaari, who was then a UN under-secretary-general. He said:
"The conflict wrought 'near-apocalyptic' results on the economic infrastructure of what had been a fairly highly urbanised and mechanised society. Now, most means of modern life support have been destroyed or rendered tenuous. Iraq has, for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age, but with all the disabilities of post-industrial dependence on an intensive use of energy and technology".
Desert Storm stopped short of invading Iraq and yet caused the damage that I and other noble Lords have described. Surely a war aimed at overthrowing the regime will be at least as destructive and probably a great deal more so.
I am aware that Mr Perle is not a member of President Bush's administration but he certainly has great influence and several members of that administration hold very similar views. So convinced
940
are they that a war is the only solution to the problem that they are likely to try to use even a minor infringement of UNMOVIC's protocol as a casus belli.
As my noble friend Lady Turner pointed out, already there has been a US complaint about Iraq's defence of its airspace against one of the now more frequent attacks on ground installations by allied aircraft in the no-fly zones. I need not repeat her argument that those no-fly zones are not authorised by the United Nations. But I note that the United Kingdom did not recognise this as an interference with the United Nations resolution. That is another example of the United Kingdom acting as a restraining influence on the more impatient elements behind US policy formation.
But we could do much more to avert this impending war which, if it occurred, would be likely to have disastrous repercussions, as other noble Lords have said, throughout the Muslim world and increase rather than decrease the likelihood of A1'Qaeda inspired terrorist attacks. This is exactly the converse of the avowed purpose of the confrontation. Perhaps today's bad news from Kenya is a precursor of more bad news to come if this conflict takes place.
There are stronger ways in which we could persuade the United States to draw back, the most obvious being to withhold our military support. We did that in Vietnam without the "special relationship" being unduly disturbed. In the case of Iraq it is less likely that the Americans will "go it alone"; we therefore hold a critical position. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will not be afraid to use this trump card skilfully so that the doves rather than the hawks prevail in Washington and a potentially disastrous and unnecessary war is averted.
Before concluding. I ask my noble friend—and follow on from the noble Lord. Lord Astor—about the humanitarian situation which is likely to arise in Iraq should we not be successful in preventing conflict. The Iraqi people have had a disastrous decade due to the twin effects of the war on the infrastructure of the country and continued sanctions which have destroyed the economy and delayed its recovery. Although there are now signs of improvement, the standard of living of Iraqi citizens has dropped to that of the third world from one approaching first world levels before the Gulf War. I am aware that Saddam himself, by not disarming to UNSCOM's satisfaction, is perhaps largely responsible, although the full story of the sanctions is far more complex.
Discussing the effect of the sanctions may seem a diversion from today's topic but it is relevant when considering the effect of a future war on the population. There is still widespread poverty and undernutrition in Iraq. Tun Myat, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, said six months ago that even though the Oil for Food programme is now preventing overt malnutrition, many poorer people have to sell part of their barely adequate ration to pay for rent and clothing. Interruption of the Oil for Food programme, which would be inevitable in case of hostilities, would find many Iraqis in a very vulnerable

941
condition and might have a disastrous effect. Can my noble friend say what advance planning is going on—here again I very much echo the words of the noble Lord. Lord Astor—to ensure that in the event of hostilities adequate food and medical supplies will rapidly be made available to the population?
The Iraqi health services, already running well below capacity, will not be able to cope with the immediate needs of the physically and mentally traumatised population which will probably include many thousands of internally displaced persons, let alone offer them any longer term rehabilitation. Perhaps learning a lesson from Afghanistan, are we prepared to put in the necessary resources after a conflict to restore a doubly damaged economy, which even now is only beginning to recover from the effects of the Gulf War? I hope that my noble friend will spare some time to address these important economic and social concerns which need to be taken into account before any military intervention is contemplated.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I must first ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House as I was unavoidably detained and unable to attend the opening of this important debate. Nevertheless, I feel it my duty to try to make some modest and short contribution despite my waywardness in respect of the rules of your Lordships' House. I hope that noble Lords will accept my apology.
The unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council to get observers back into Iraq while threatening Saddam Hussein with serious consequences if he obstructed them was a diplomatic triumph, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said in his powerful speech. All concerned, not least our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, deserve heartfelt congratulations and thanks. It must be recognised, however, that this could not have come about, let alone been accepted by Iraq, without a credible and continuing threat of force by the Americans.
But surely we now need to build on that consensus, which must be the only right way of handling international relations in the modern world, and not deviate from the Security Council unless it becomes literally the only way to achieve the indisputable aim of destroying or disarming Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as required and demanded by the Security Council itself. That objective must somehow be brought about.
However, the date of 8th December, by which time Saddam Hussein is required under the resolution to disclose and list any such weapons in his possession, may, if he prevaricates, provide a flashpoint for military action. That causes me some concern. It must be better for the observers, armed with all the intelligence at their disposal from the United States and others, which must be considerable and detailed, to find whatever weapons exist and destroy them rather than that we should use a quibble over paperwork as an excuse for going to war prematurely and without further UN sanction.
942
There are, after all, to coin a phrase, more ways of killing a cat. However much the British Government may want, quite understandably, to be seen to be supporting the United States, I hope that the Prime Minister will not forget that wise observation of the renowned Chinese general of 500BC, General Sun Tsu, who said that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy—notice the phrase "subdue the enemy"—without fighting. Incidentally, that is a philosophy which seemed to suit the Americans at Yorktown.
Finally, I hope that war will not become inevitable. Whatever success there may be early on, any—even temporary—occupation of Iraq will, I believe, create more problems than it solves. But, if it does become inevitable, can the Government assure us flat the British forces that they send to participate in any American action—if, indeed, that is the intention—will, in every sense, be properly prepared for whatever lies ahead of them?
Will they, for example, be properly equipped? That has been mentioned previously. There have been some ominous rumours about equipment. Much work needs to be done in that area. Will they be properly supported, particularly in the medical field, given that the medical services are struggling to keep their head above water? In view of the pressures on them and the over-stretch highlighted by the Chief of the Defence Staff, will they be properly trained? Can we be assured that the views of the Chiefs of Staff will he listened to and respected and that, as a result, our forces will have clear-cut, attainable objectives, both in the short and longer terms? Judging by Afghanistan, they could be there for quite a while.
In short, can we be assured that our forces are not being asked to take unnecessary risks? All armed forces take risks and they do it willingly and consciously. But we want to be assured that they are not taking unnecessary risks. It is absolutely lueicrous to think that war can somehow be cash limited. Either something is worth fighting and making sacrifices for or it is not.
I hope that the Minister will try to give assurances on the points I have raised. At least my contribution, which comes so close to his winding-up speech, should be comparatively fresh in his memory. After all, we would be asking men and women to risk their lives for reasons which, to say the least, are more obscure and contentious than those which prevailed in World War II, Korea, the Falklands or the Gulf. So the Government had better get it right.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I can hardly resist adding to the reference to Yorktown made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I had pleasure in reading that Yorktown was not, as I had originally understood, a British/American conflict but fiat the German regiments in the British Army surrendered to the Irish regiments in the French Army as the siege came to a conclusion. We often forget how confused and multi-national our past conflicts were.

943
This has been a very thoughtful and intelligent debate. It began with a thoughtful, helpful and constructive speech from the Minister. We all welcome Resolution 1441. It was carefully drafted, tight and tough. It was well worth the weeks of multilateral negotiation which led to its unanimous agreement. I repeat what I said in the Queen's Speech debate: we on these Benches congratulate the Government on the very useful contribution that they made to that outcome. However, we all recognise that the Government are maintaining a delicate balance of critical support for the United States, holding together the multilateral coalition with a great deal more of the tightrope still to cross before safety and a safe conclusion are reached.
The Minister's speech underlined the significant differences of understanding between London and Washington. In London there is a much greater emphasis on disarmament than on regime change. We welcomed the explicit comment that there is a settled preference within the British Government for a second resolution. We also welcome the Minister's clear statement that our definition of material breach is as a deliberate and significant breach and not, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, remarked, a mistake on the paperwork.
We also note and welcome the Minister's acceptance that there is an unavoidable link with the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the international community needs to press forward on that, not simply to make occasional speeches reminding the world that we have accepted in principle a two-state solution even as action on the ground in the West Bank and the Gaza makes a two-state solution more and more difficult week by week.
One hesitation I had with the introductory speech of the noble Baroness was her reference to Iraq as a bad regime. I worry about those in the United States who divide the world into good guys and bad guys; a very simple Manichaean view of the world, which is one of the worries many of us have about the current debate within Washington. The world is full of greys rather than blacks and whites. Most regimes with which we have to deal around the world are on the murky side of grey. Sadly, international diplomacy is not a matter of knowing who is with us and who is against us but a matter of how we have to deal with unsatisfactory governments elsewhere around the world.
We welcome the Government giving strong but critical and qualified support for the United States. As many noble Lords have said, we all have concerns about the current debate within Washington. The noise of the neo-Conservative right in the Op-Ed pages, the think tanks, and so forth, is extremely worrying. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, referred to Theodore Roosevelt's comment that one should speak softly and carry a big stick. A Conservative right in Washington, as Richard Perle made clear to us, believes that one should speak loudly and thrash around with a big stick. That is not necessarily the same desirable approach.
944
The justification for the war on Iraq as a response to September 11th is one which we have to resist. Yes, the American people felt wounded by that massive terrorist attack, but there is no evidence of any direct link between Iraq and A1'Qaeda in that attack on New York. The fact that the American people feel that they are at war, as the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, said, does not suggest that political leadership should simply follow them.
There have been occasions in the past year when I have thought both of Britain and the United States in 1898 and 1899 when a press war swept the United States into war with Spain, and when a similar jingoistic crowd swept Britain into war with those silly little Boer Republics in South Africa and thought that the transfer of a few regiments from India, where they had been fairly successful putting down the Afghan tribes would sort things out in six months. On both occasions the states were carried away by jingoism and stopped thinking about the rational and long-term implications of their actions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We are dealing with a fearful giant in the United States and we need to ensure that we make it less fearful and that we do not feed its fears. I am not sure that I would go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in saying that the United States is not a St Bernard but a Rottweiler. That seems to me to be rather over the top. There are distortions and taboos in the American domestic debate of which we all have to be carefully aware.
The noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, gave us a flavour of that right-wing debate. He talked of the United States having a righteous cause. I have heard people in Washington talk about the United States as a righteous nation and on that basis justify stating that the United States does not need to obey international law in the same way as we do because we are much less righteous. With respect, that is a fundamentalist approach, which we all have to resist. We must resist Christian fundamentalism in the United States as much as we resist Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East. The United States does not have a casus belli against Iraq now. September 11th did not provide the United States with that cause. Throwing around phrases such as "appeasement" and "treachery" simply does not help.
The United Kingdom and other European allies therefore need to be more vocal in their participation in the debate within Washington and across the United States in persuading the United States that war against terrorism is not the answer, but that an engagement with other countries from which terrorists draw support is what we all have to do.
The question of links between the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq and Israel/Palestine is therefore a key element of this debate and of a number of future debates. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord King, in effect accepted that these two are the same; that the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq are part of the same conflict.
There are links, but they are not direct. A1'Qaeda feeds on anti-Americanism, but at its core is based on fundamentalist Islam, is anti-modernisation, is anti

945
the current Saudi regime and is also anti a number of regimes in the Middle East. Saddam is not—as I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour, suggest, a radical Islamist; he is a cynical secularist who actually is trying to modernise Iraq and stands against many of the things promoted by the A1'Qaeda network.
Iraq gives support to specific terrorist groups which are anti-Israel, as indeed do some within Iran. But that has a limited geographical spread. It is equally to be condemned, but clearly to be understood as not part of the same problem. Israel is a symbol and an excuse for radical Islamic terrorists, but we need to be careful what it is that we are fighting.
A number of noble Lords—most impressively I thought the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—have spoken about the implications of a war on Iraq for the wider war on terrorism and for the Middle East as a whole. I was at an extremely interesting conference in Washington in September about the threat that anti-Americanism would grow in the event of a war with Iraq. I was very happy to know that a number of people within the Washington policy community are actively concerned about that. Thus, the West has to take great care that in approaching any necessary and unavoidable conflict with Iraq—if we reach that stage—we do not emerge with an American protectorate which looks as though the West is attempting to occupy part of the heart of the Arab world.
The containment of terrorism, as the British have learned painfully over the past 30 years, requires a long-term commitment with great determination and great patience, and a recognition that there can never be a complete victory over terrorism. There are still unreconciled terrorists in Ireland. There are still too many unreconciled terrorists in the Basque country. The red brigades in Italy have not entirely disappeared. But, by drying up the pool of support from which these gained their activists, we have managed in all those cases to reduce the threat. That is the way we have to deal with A1'Qaeda. That is why the reconstruction of Iraq, if there is to be a war, has to be very carefully managed on a multilateral basis. That is also why the reconstruction of Afghanistan, in which currently the West is close to failing, is an important indication of how our approach to that entire region should go forward. And we have to resist at all costs those noisy voices on the Washington right that suggest that after a victory in Iraq the United States and its allies should roll forward from there across Iran and the rest of the Middle East.
One or two noble Lords—in particular the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall—have talked about the question of military preparedness. That is an important issue about which I hope that the Minister will say something in his speech. It seems to me that that is not the major thrust of today's debate but it is something to which we shall need to return.
The question of containment versus invasion, however, is one about which a number of noble Lords have spoken—again most impressively and at an early
946
stage, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who carefully went through the exact resolution. Containment has not failed. Inspections are not a charade. We all have to remember that between 1992 and 1993 UN inspectors with much less good equipment than the team now has managed to destroy a substantial amount of the ABC weapons which Iraq had. To suggest that inspections have no chance of succeeding again seems to be a gospel of despair which all the evidence we so far have does not support. I note the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that we are likely to be subject to all sorts of tricks and diversions from the Iraqi regime, but that, too, was so before. Containment must therefore be tried.
We must also have progress on the Israel-Palestine dispute. The most dangerous phrase that one hears in Washington and reads in the American press is that the road to Jerusalem lies through Baghdad, as if an invasion of Iraq will somehow resolve the Israel-Palestine dispute by removing what is seen as the source of support for Palestinian terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that we must understand what this looks like to the Americans. We in the West must also think what this looks like to Muslims in the Muslim world. Heavy American support for Israel, vast financial support for Israel and repeated retreats from bringing pressure to bear on Israel look like an appalling imbalance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Powell, for reminding us that President Bush 41, as he called him, promised firm American leadership and a Middle East conference to push for a settlement once the United States and its allies had liberated Kuwait from Iraq, but that that was forgotten once the Gulf war had successfully ended.
We may hope for changes in domestic policy in Israel and Palestine; we must hope that they move away from confrontation towards peace. We certainly need more impetus from the quartet, which the Minister mentioned—a quartet now, sadly, operating at relatively middle-ranking official level, rather than at the political level at which it began. We certainly need pressure on both sides in the dispute and an early peace conference but, above all, we need pressure now on Israel to step back from its attempted destruction of the economy and society of the West Bank, which looks to Palestinians and other Muslims like a preliminary to the expulsion of the population—what is called a Jordanian solution.
So we support the government position as set out by the Minister in her careful speech: a step-by-step approach, delicately balanced, with critical support for the United States, recognising all of America's strengths and weaknesses. We want closer and more explicit co-operation with other European Governments—we may not have obtained the resolution without both the British and French Governments' efforts. We want that to be developed a good deal further. But in all that, we want the Government to push forward with the intention of strengthening international institutions and law, to demonstrate that even in the case of states such as Iraq,

947
multilateral diplomacy, enforced by effective inspection, can provide an effective answer to global problems.
5.58 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I welcome the Motion so ably moved by the noble Baroness. It is particularly gratifying that throughout the debate we have been attended by both Ministers.
The House knows that we on these Benches fully support the Government's strategy. However, first, I must declare an interest as a serving Territorial Army officer with a Group A commission—that is a very direct interest.
Many noble Lords have commented on the desirability of UNSCR 1441, which is vital to demonstrate the resolve of the international community that Saddam must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We must at all costs avoid any risk of a perception by Saddam or his generals of a lack of resolve on our part. I regret that his perception of our firemen's strike will be just that.
The strike also divides the attention of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the service chiefs. The Fire Brigades Union and its members are compromising the security of the United Kingdom. The services' view of the firefighters is practically unprintable. However, I do not believe that the strike reduces our ability to deploy a substantial force. That is because of the way that units have been allocated by the staff. On the other hand, as we know, it means that some units have had to endure painful cancellations of post-operational tour leave.
Parliament's anxiety stems from two concerns: first, the need for further resolutions before the start of any conflict and, secondly, the need for UK parliamentary authority. Obviously, that authority will come primarily from the other place rather than your Lordships' House, but we will, of course, give our counsel.
We may be missing one point. It may be necessary to deploy a coercive force; certainly, it will be necessary to prepare to do so. I am not convinced that we are properly prepared. I will say more about that later.
I am confident that the Government will not give us any nasty surprises in Parliament. All UK governments have a good record of making appropriate announcements to Parliament. However, it would be nice if Parliament heard before the media.
The military difficulty is this: we cannot sustain even a brigade for the type of operations being planned. It is not a simplistic issue about tank engine air filters. In Germany during the Cold War we planned for a war of two weeks' duration, with short and reducing lines of communication. Now, we face an operation with long lines of communication in extremely hostile terrain. In addition, large numbers of armoured vehicles will cover long distances using manoeuvre warfare tactics. That will result in a high logistic load. I am not giving anything away; any military analyst can confirm those facts. Noble Lords will also be aware of
948
other problems such as those relating to the Defence Medical Services and the impact that they will inevitably have on operations and services in the NHS.
Several years ago, at this Dispatch Box, I admitted that DCS 15 was not a perfectly developed policy. However, this is the sixth year of this Government: what have they achieved since then? It will be no use hanging on to the United States' coat-tails so far as concerns logistics. Surprisingly, they have their own logistical challenges. It would be suicide to deploy ill prepared. Doing so would demonstrate a lack of genuine resolve and could lead to operational failure.
With two caveats, we on these Benches supported the Strategic Defence Review. Indeed, we were pleasantly surprised by it. However, there were two exceptions. First, there was the destruction of the TA infantry. How would we keep the rear areas secure? There was also the 3 per cent year-on-year efficiency saving, which has caused so much difficulty at the Ministry of Defence. SDR rightly recognised that, in future, we will be engaged in expeditionary warfare, which is just what we are talking about. Four years after the SDR, the Government have failed to implement the plan completely.
I fully accept that there have been significant and welcome shop-front improvements, but the chickens are coming home to roost. For instance, there is no effective fleet of off-road fuel-carrying vehicles. Under the Smart procurement initiative, the Government toyed around with a PFI solution for a few years and then realised that there would be no third party revenue for an off-road fuel tanker. Apparently, the Government are now going for outright purchase, but no orders have been placed for that vital capability. We still use the low-mobility tankers that I was trained to drive 25 years ago. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is just about to nod his head.
Another concern is the general level of stocks of matèriel—spare parts and so on. It would not be helpful to go into greater detail on the shortfalls. Whether or not the Government judge it necessary to deploy, will the Minister assure the House that he will fully implement the SDR plan so that in future we do not have sustainability gaps?
Much comment has been made about exercise Saif Sareea. I was on it. It was an extremely good and valuable exercise. Of course, there were difficulties and disappointments. Incidentally, my biggest problem was accidentally separating the Secretary of State from his tactical communications operator and then almost killing the unacclimatised operator by making him trot, not run, for 150 metres, which gives some indication of the difficulties of operating in that part of the world during the summer. It is very important to understand that only France and the United States, and possibly Russia, could deploy a brigade for combat operations at a strategic distance from the home base.
Many noble Lords spoke about chemical and biological weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others made some interesting observations about the difficulty of delivering chemical and biological

949
attacks. In terms of attacks on our own troops, it is important to understand that chemicals are only another weapon. They can inflict casualties and horrible injuries, but they are not comparable to a nuclear attack. The real military problem is the need to wear chemical protection suits and associated clothing requirements in very high ambient temperatures, which significantly degrades operational capability. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, possibly underestimated the difficulty of removing a persistent nerve agent should our equipment become contaminated.
Many noble Lords spoke about Iraq after all threats have been eliminated, perhaps post-conflict, perhaps not. I have been involved with post-conflict reconstruction in Bosnia and Rwanda. The process of observing improvements on a week by week basis can be rewarding. The concern must be about the number of states that have to be rebuilt and the challenge of identifying funds to do so.
We do not hear much in the media about our efforts in Kosovo. That is perhaps not surprising because the process, especially with elections, has been going rather well. Of course, there are challenges; organised crime; drugs; and trafficking in human beings.
The real question that arises is: can we deploy a credible, sustainable force in order to help convince Saddam and his generals that UNSCR 1441 must be complied with? I am certain that we can, and, as many noble Lords have noted, we need to be able to do so in order to exert a suitable strong influence on the US Government.
The Minister no doubt has a rather large shopping list for any possible deployment. The Minister has said that no decisions have been made. What worries me is that I believe him. The Government's plan must contain timescales. It would not be wise to suggest the when, what, how or why of those timescales. But it essential that, when required, Ministers make decision without hesitation. Some of the decisions will be extremely expensive, as suggested in today's Daily Telegraph. Interestingly, mobilising the TA would not be one of the first overt actions.
However, it is not possible to deploy at brigade strength, or greater, without extensive use of reservists, by which I especially mean volunteer reserves, such as the T.A. The Secretary of State in another place indicated that reservists would informally be sounded out to ascertain their availability for operations. Twenty-five years of experience in the TA informs me that the vast majority do not want to volunteer to be called up. They want to be compulsorily called up, so that they can tell their families and their employers that they are legally and morally bound to go. But being compulsorily called up will be a momentous event in their lives. It is important that they are mobilised by their parent unit and with officers and men whom they trust. There will be some who cannot go due to family reasons or because they are essential to their employers. RFA 96 provides a means of appeal, and commanding officers are best placed to determine these matters.
950
Finally, on these occasions we invariably lavish fulsome and well deserved praise on our Armed Forces, and I do so again today. However, we must not forget the position of the inspection teams in Iraq. They are doing an extremely difficult and dangerous job and I believe that they are displaying the highest levels of physical and moral courage.
6.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, today's debate has illustrated yet again the great wealth of experience on all sides of this House. We are lucky indeed. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in today's excellent debate. We have heard about Saddam the dictator and oppressor of his own people; we have heard about his misdeeds against his neighbours and against Iran and Kuwait in particular; but we have also heard about the risks of military action and the need for the Government to consider carefully what the consequences might be.
It is a statement of the obvious that for any responsible government, military action is always a grave step and a last resort. No member of this Government, or of any other government, wishes to risk British lives unnecessarily. But let there be no doubt that our goal, the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, is a peaceful one and the UNSCR 1441 offers Iraq a process towards peace and disarmament.
The issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is the focus of our efforts because that is the major threat which Saddam poses to the international community. That includes the danger that Iraqi WM') will proliferate to terrorist organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about direct links between Saddam and terrorist organisations. Other noble Lords also referred to that topic. There is a long history of that, including Iraqi support to Palestinian terror groups such as Abu Nidhal and the MEK in Iran. Although we keep an open mind on links to A1'Qaeda, nothing we have seen so far suggests that Iraq was behind 11th September attacks. We do not have evidence of a direct link. I am not prepared—no Minister would be—to say more about matters so closely based on intelligence, partly with new information that is coming forward each day.
UNSCR 1441 has been the result of much concerted effort both at the United Nations in New York and bilaterally, too, between nations. The Government have been credited with playing a key role in this process and I am grateful for the compliments that have been paid. Other countries, too, must take credit, including the United States. It has led to the achievement of a considerable international consensus. Noble Lords have raised many questions about Resolution 1441. I will address as many of them as I can.
I begin with material breach. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Powell of Bayswater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others asked about that issue. They asked what would

951
constitute a material breach and how it might lead to military action. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary set that out in some detail on Monday in another place and I am sure that noble Lords have read what he had to say in Hansard. My noble friend Lady Symons today dealt with that point fully. It is important.
In the course of his comments, my right honourable friend explained that Resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to comply with the wishes of the international community. Paragraph 4, about which we have heard a great deal, states that a further material breach would arise where there are,
"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of this resolution".
The Government's interpretation of the clause was given by the Foreign Secretary, who said:
"As with any definition of that type, it is never possible to give an exhaustive list of all conceivable behaviours that it covers. That judgment has to be made against the real circumstances that arise, but … material breach means something significant: some behaviour or pattern of behaviour that is serious. Among such breaches could be action by the Government of Iraq seriously to obstruct or to impede the inspectors, to intimidate witnesses, or a pattern of behaviour where any single action appears relatively minor but the actions as a whole add up to something deliberate and more significant: something that shows Iraq's intention not to comply".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/02; cols. 51–52.]
However, as has been said both in this debate by my noble friend and the Foreign Secretary on Monday, no one wants military action to be taken against Iraq, or any other country, in some gratuitous manner. Resolution 1441 is a peaceful process, properly authorised under international law. It is now up to Saddam Hussein alone to comply with the wishes of the international community and to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction.
Some have linked the issue of material breach to the position of coalition patrols of the Iraqi no-fly zones. This issue has not featured much in the debate but it has been said outside the Chamber. In order to understand it, we need to consider the context in which these patrols operate. Coalition aircraft patrol the no-fly zones in support of UNSCR 688, which states that Saddam must end the brutal repression of his people, both in the north and in the south. The House will know that these patrols were set up in response to an overwhelming humanitarian necessity. That is the justification for our patrolling of those zones under international law.
In carrying out this task, coalition aircrew face attacks daily from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. Any response they make is entirely in self-defence, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
We should be proud of our servicemen and servicewomen who contribute to the maintenance of the no-fly zones. A few months ago, I was fortunate and privileged enough to visit Ali Al Salem in Kuwait to see some of those who act with such courage on our behalf and on behalf of the persecuted minorities in Iraq.
952
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, paid an extremely well merited tribute to those servicemen and servicewomen. He asked about medals—he was good enough to give me warning that he would do so—and I have an answer here for him. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not read it out in full. I shall write to him with that answer because I have much to say about this issue, but I have reason to believe that he will not find the answer unpleasant reading.
The focus of Resolution 1441 is on the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and UNMOVIC provides the mechanism for taking this forward through its inspection regime.
As to the inspection process itself, there have been many justified questions and queries about it—some of which I may be able to answer and others I will not—but under Resolution 1441 Iraq must complete a final declaration of its WMD and other prohibited holdings by 8th December this year. It will then be for UNMOVIC to verify the accuracy and the completeness of that declaration through the inspection process.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked about the 60 days. The first progress report from UNMOVIC, from Dr Blix, is due by 26th January 2003. Obviously no one can speculate about it, but the resolution provides for further reports until the Security Council considers the work of UNMOVIC and its sister organisation to be complete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about time-frames. The time-frames agreed and explicitly set out in the resolution were debated thoroughly. It is important to note that Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei's teams were consulted on the drawing up of the time-frames.
So far as concerns funding, the inspectors are paid for by the oil for food programme, which runs a healthy surplus. There is no shortage of money for this mission. As regards the number of inspectors, Dr Blix has said that he is content that he has enough inspectors: some 300 on UNMOVIC's books to carry out the task set. On the timetable for inspections, the calendar set out in the resolution was discussed in detail with the leaders of the two teams.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked how capable UNMOVIC would be in carrying out what is certainly a challenging task. I make just two points. Dr Blix has, of course, the full backing of the United Nations, and member nations are more determined than ever to see a successful inspection regime. We are, for example, in direct discussion with the UN on how best we can assist UNMOVIC if it requires further help. Secondly, it must be remembered that Dr Blix and his team are hacked by a much tougher Security Council resolution than were their predecessors. There are, for example, no off-limits sites, as were the so-called presidential or sensitive sites.
Let me make it clear that the Government's goal is to seek Iraqi compliance with the inspection process set up by the resolution and with its disarmament obligations under earlier UN resolutions. We look to UNMOVIC to carry out thorough inspections and to

953
report any non-compliance, whether it is Iraq's failure to co-operate or the discovery of illegal WMD, direct to the Security Council. On receipt of such a report, the first step will be for the Security Council to meet and consider what further action needs to be taken. The resolution makes clear that any failure of compliance by Iraq will have serious consequences.
We have debated widely the use of military force and the sequence of events that might lead to military action. Resolution 1441 is neither a pretext for military action, nor does it stipulate that a second Security Council resolution would be needed to authorise military action. We have made it clear, and I do so again. that our preference is for a second UNSCR in the event of a material breach of Resolution 1441 and that it should authorise the use of military force. In doing so, the Security Council will continue to face up to its responsibilities, as it has done so far.
But my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was right the other day—my noble friend Lord Desai mentioned it today—to reserve the Government's position on the necessity of a second resolution. As the Foreign Secretary said, had we not similarly reserved our position in 1999, no military action against Milosevic would have been possible in respect of Kosovo.
I can assure the House that the Government will only consider the case for military action in full compliance with international law. This can be considered only against the background of the circumstances that we find at the time. I shall not attempt to second-guess those circumstances. Of course the House wants certainty and clarity now, but those who seek certainty must bear in mind that it would be helpful not only to the House; it could be helpful to Saddam himself.
The question was raised whether there should be a vote on military action. My noble friend Lady Symons made clear the Government's position on the matter in her opening speech. I shall not go into it again. Let me emphasise, however, that no decision on military action has been taken, and there is no reason why such a decision must follow.
Saddam has it in his power to comply with the will of the international community. But, frankly, experience shows that he has only ever complied when diplomacy has been backed by credible force. Does anyone seriously consider that we would be where we are today, with inspectors in Iraq and at least the promise of co-operation from Saddam Hussein, if there had not been that threat of force? Obversely, does anyone consider that, if that threat was dissipated in any way, Iraq would simply revert to former attitudes? We do not need a crystal ball; just read the history books.
It is on that basis that, with the greatest respect, I cannot accept the analysis brilliantly made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. He asked what made Saddam so different, and why he should want to start a new war against the united position of the United Nations. Perhaps for the same reasons as he began two wars in his region some years ago, one of which resulted in more than a million people dead; for the
954
same reason as he has killed his own people in tens of thousands; and for the same reason as he has defied (that is an understatement)—laughed at—the clear position of the United Nations for 10 long years. If he thinks he can act with impunity as he has done until now, he will carry on doing so. That is why it is time for the United Nations not just to pass resolutions, hut, if necessary, to act upon them. Even if the noble Lord is right that Saddam has changed and no longer sees any advantage to be gained, rationally or irrationally, by acting as before, no responsible government could take a risk on that.
I shall now discuss military preparations. Our goal is to achieve the aims of Resolution 1441. But it would he unrealistic not to plan for the contingency that those aims cannot be achieved by peaceful means alone. Not only would it leave our Armed Forces ill-prepared; it would send exactly the wrong message to Saddam Hussein. My right honourable friend the Defence Secretary set out in the other place some of the preparatory steps that we arc taking, in particular with respect to reservist members of the .Armecl Forces and military equipment, which I shall summarise.
Before that, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, whose words are ringing in my ear because they were spoken so recently, needs to be reassured. I hope that I can do so. He would not expect me to say anything else. Required preparations will be made so that, if it proves necessary to send British Armed Forces into war, they are not unprepared.
The House should be clear that we have not called out any reservists for possible military action against Iraq; nor do we have immediate plans to do so. But any substantial military operation will require a contribution from the reserves. We are therefore clarifying the requirement of such a contribution in support of any military action against Iraq, a process that in due course may involve sending out members of reservist-formed units, individual reservists or their employers. The House should note that only planning activity is authorised at this stage. I assure the House that, should it be judged that we need to call out reservists for potential military action, there will be a formal call-out under the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Most importantly, that will be reported to Parliament.
As regards military equipment, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is nonsense to suggest that the Strategic Defence Review is riot being implemented. The concept of high-readiness flexible forces able to respond rapidly to events was a core tenet of that review. We introduced the joint rapid reaction force to deliver this and equipment such as the introduction of the C-17s and HMS "Ocean" to deliver our forces in theatre and to sustain them. There are real-life examples of our ability to deploy and sustain our forces, whether one looks to Afghanistan, Sierra Leone or East Timor.
As part of this planning and preparation we have also been considering potential additional capability requirements. We are of course committed to equipping the Armed Forces for a range of contingencies, but specific operational environments

955
and scenarios require special priority to be given to particular capabilities. That is why we have been taking action to meet certain capability requirements as quickly as possible. We have a comprehensive and diverse programme under way, ranging from the provision of increased numbers of boots and desert clothing through temporary deployable accommodation to the modification and enhancement of our Challenger 2 and AS-90 armoured vehicles.
Importantly, we also have measures in hand to improve the provision of medical care to our Armed Forces both at the sharp end, where we are upgrading our battlefield ambulance to facilitate treatment during transit, and through the modernisation of our field hospital infrastructure to provide a much improved level of secondary care. We take very seriously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, about equipment and clothing in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others have mentioned costs, asking about the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday in another place that a £1 billion special reserve had been allocated to cover the costs of military and overseas operations this year. I assure the noble Lord that the figure represents a prudent allocation at this time but makes no assumption about the nature of any UK contribution to international efforts in Iraq or elsewhere. Any media reports that we are somehow holding back on military preparations because of Treasury reticence are simply wrong.
Many noble Lords, too numerous to mention by name, have talked about post-conflict and humanitarian thinking. Those are important points. However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said—unless I misunderstood him—this is not the main point of the debate today. Maybe I am misquoting him. I apologise. My comments on the subject are important but strictly limited. I stress straightaway that the Government are working to avoid the conflict and, while we are taking military contingency planning forward, it would be wrong to do so in isolation, ignoring the humanitarian and post-conflict considerations. Of course, any coalition forces on the ground will clearly bear responsibility for the immediate future and security of the country in the aftermath of any operation. It is therefore incumbent on military planners to take those factors into account now. I assure the House that to the extent that military planning can be taken forward now, it is happening. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the whole international community should be involved in the humanitarian and civil effort that would be needed after a conflict. The Government take seriously their potential responsibilities towards the Iraqi
956
people. In the aftermath of any potential conflict, we, Britain, will of course remain at the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people. I do not intend to say any more about that today, but I am sure that the subject will come up again and again.
Before concluding, I shall say a word about the Middle East peace process, which many noble Lords have rightly mentioned, as happened in the last debate on the subject. The Government believe that the Middle East peace process and Iraq are separate issues. Sadly, the difficulties in the Middle East predate Saddam Hussein. However, the Government recognise that to many, particularly in the Arab world, the two are inextricably linked. That is one reason why the Prime Minister has been so clear that it is vital to use every endeavour to move the Middle East peace process on and to resolve it and why my noble friend made a point of addressing the issue when she opened the debate this morning.
We believe that we are taking the right steps to prepare for what may come. We are drawing on the lessons of recent conflicts. I hope that we have reassured the House that the Ministry of Defence is doing everything it can to ensure that our servicemen and women are properly equipped if it becomes necessary to call them into action. As my noble friend made clear, the responsibility rests solely with the Iraqi regime to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction.
We believe that our position is a reasonable one. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people; indeed, it is in everyone's interest, including theirs, that Iraq should comply with the resolution placed upon it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in another place on Monday, history should have taught us the dangers of not dealing effectively with ruthless dictators. Therefore, we can be grateful that the international community is definitely resolved to deal with Saddam Hussein through the process set out in UNSCR 1441.
On Question, Motion agreed.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the courts and their procedure and practice, about judges and magistrates, about fines and the enforcement processes of the courts, and about periodical payments of damages; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Asylum Applicants in Detention
  Asylum Applicants in Detention
  Proposed Legislation: Effect on Scotland
  Proposed Legislation: Effect on Scotland
  Treasury: External Consulting Contracts
  Treasury: External Consulting Contracts
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  France: UK Beef Import Ban
  France: UK Beef Import Ban
  State Aid Rules
  State Aid Rules
  Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste
  Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste
  Solar Thermal Industry
  Solar Thermal Industry
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Mass Burial Sites
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Mass Burial Sites
  Horticultural Research
  Horticultural Research
  EU Grant Aid: TSE Programme
  EU Grant Aid: TSE Programme
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  Child Protection: Staff Shortages
  Child Protection: Staff Shortages
  Sure Start: Rural Communities
  Sure Start: Rural Communities
  Primary and Post-Primary Schools: Funding
  Primary and Post-Primary Schools: Funding
  Motor Vehicles: Electronic Relicensing
  Motor Vehicles: Electronic Relicensing
  DVLA: Credit Cards
  DVLA: Credit Cards
  Air Transport: Future Development
  Air Transport: Future Development
  Midlands Region Airport: Controls
  Midlands Region Airport: Controls
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Education
  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Education
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Unenforced and Uncollected Fines
  Unenforced and Uncollected Fines