Sitting of 30 April 2003

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

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 7 May.

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

    Livestock Movements
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent discussions she has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the effects of the six-day rule on agriculture, with particular reference to effects upon agricultural shows and festivals; and if she will make a statement. [109785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular bilateral meetings with ministerial colleagues and, of course, with the First Minister. They cover a number of issues, including agriculture. The six-day rule has freed up the movement of livestock while ensuring that risks to animal health are kept to an absolute minimum.
    Mr. Llwyd: I see from today's Order Paper that the Secretary of State is referred to as female. Perhaps I can understand the Table Office misunderstanding which party he stands for. He is new Labour here and very old Labour in Neath. However, to question his gender is another thing.
    The people of Wales have been waiting for months and months for the six-day rule to be adapted. Agricultural fairs will be ruined in the coming months, and many will be cancelled. That is ruinous for agriculture, bad for the rural economy and terrible for morale. Is it no wonder that the people of rural Wales will reject Labour tomorrow?
    Mr. Touhig: Saying that Labour will be rejected in Wales tomorrow is about as convincing as recruiting Attila the Hun to the peace corps. However, I have
    280
    sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says about the six-day rule. The veterinary advice that we have is strongly against providing additional exemptions to the rule. It is felt that adding further options would make it more complex. The six-day standstill strikes a balance between allowing industry to operate efficiently and preventing further outbreaks of the disease, and that is what we all want. However, I recognise the impact that the rule is having on small agricultural shows.
    Paul Flynn: Should not the Minister disregard the manic hyperbole from Plaid Cymru and consider the reasons why foot and mouth spread in this country in a way that it did not spread in Holland, France, Ireland or Scotland? It spread because of excessive and unnecessary movements in which more than 1 million animals were in contact with foot and mouth before the disease was detected. Is it not right that non-essential movements of animals should be restricted not only to ensure that any future outbreak of foot and mouth is confined to a small area, but to guard against other animal diseases such as blue tongue virus and swine vesicular disease?
    Mr. Touhig: I take note of my hon. Friend's point, but I reiterate the advice that we have been given by veterinary officials. The six-day rule is appropriate and strikes a proper balance between the risks. We certainly do not want to return to the problems that we had a few months ago.
    Lembit Öpik: Answers to my parliamentary questions show that the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock, which is to come in tonight, is not based on solid evidence. Given that the Government have not researched the risk assessment regarding that method, are they and the Minister willing to respond to representations from representatives of Welsh farming about the fallen stock regime that it would like to see? Can he assure us that the Government will show flexibility in the months ahead in their proposed new scheme, given the uncertainties that we all know exist?
    Mr. Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman says, the European Union legislation comes into force tonight and tomorrow. It will ban routine on-farm burial and the burning of animal carcases. My colleagues in the Assembly continue to work on a national fallen stock scheme, but I will certainly accept the representations to which he refers and make sure that they are passed on to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the National Assembly.

    Excluded Pupils
    Mr. Wayne David: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the numbers of permanently excluded pupils from secondary schools in Wales. [109786]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister and I regularly meet the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss a range of educational issues.
    Mr. David: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that the largest percentage of excluded pupils in any area in Wales is in the Caerphilly county borough where the local authority is nationalist controlled? Does he also share my concern that many of those excluded pupils are on the streets of the borough engaging in antisocial behaviour because the local authority does not provide adequate alternative educational provision?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point, and I deeply regret the fact that the borough that he and I share, which is run by the Welsh nationalist party, has one of the highest figures for exclusion in Wales. The average figure for Wales is 1.7 per cent.
    However, I want to make it clear that my colleagues in the Assembly are putting together a package of £500,000 for the next three years in which they are looking to pilot projects to establish the causes of pupil disengagement. My hon. Friend is right to say that youngsters who are excluded from school cause antisocial nuisance problems right throughout our borough. I made that point when I spoke at the NUT Cymru dinner at Harrogate recently. I believe that we have to work hard, as the Government are doing, in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly in Cardiff to ensure that we put in the resources to tackle the problem. I also believe that it starts in the home. Parents have a responsibility to see that their children go to school.

    Youth Offending
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent representations he has received on measures to address youth offending in Wales. [109787]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have received representations from a number of sources.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for his usual enlightening reply. Will he comment on the statement made by Edwina Hart that has come to light during the recent campaign in Wales? She said:
    "The public sector in Wales does not provide any drug and alcohol rehabilitation places".

    In light of the fact that drug-related crime has increased by 13 per cent. in Wales during the past year and given that youth offending is unfortunately part of that culture, what will he do to ensure that drug rehabilitation places that are funded by the public sector will be available in every part of Wales?
    Peter Hain: I was with the Home Secretary in Cynon Valley a few months ago to take forward an extra investment of several hundreds of thousands of pounds precisely to deal with the drug programme: not only clamping down on drug traffickers but dealing with
    282
    rehabilitation. There is record investment throughout Wales as a result of the extra investment and spending that the Labour Government are putting into Wales.
    Alan Howarth: While I strongly endorse what the Government are doing to prioritise the tackling of antisocial behaviour, may I ask them through my right hon. Friend to ensure that resources are available to enable the police to provide more uniformed foot patrols in areas that are especially afflicted by antisocial behaviour and that antisocial behaviour orders may be speedily made and, once made, upheld?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Wales has one of the first pilots on antisocial behaviour, which is taking the agenda forward. The Government are determined to clamp down on antisocial behaviour. It is a real plague in many of our communities in Wales: on estates and elsewhere in many of our valley communities and throughout the nation. That is why our anti-crime and antisocial behaviour strategies are being implemented, and we should receive more support from Opposition parties for our work to clamp down on the problem.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State for Wales knows that persistent youth offending has shot up by 58 per cent. and that more young people are the victims of crime themselves. Only proper funding will sort out the problem. The chief of Dyfed-Powys police force has complained about the switching of funds from rural parts of Wales to large urban areas in England. Was he not right to say that the inane, reassuring Home Office press releases stating that funding is sufficient should be entered for the Booker prize for fiction? If the Government ever capture the Iraqi information Minister, perhaps they can employ him to read out some of those press releases. When will they ensure that proper funding for our rural areas of Wales is achieved?
    Peter Hain: That was very well rehearsed, was it not? The charge comes from a Conservative party that would cut spending by 20 per cent. right across the board.
    Mr. Evans: Rubbish.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says rubbish, but let me quote the Leader of the Opposition from 30 December 2002:
    "20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending …That's what we're looking at".
    What would that mean for crime in Wales? Nearly 1,400 police officers would be sacked. There would be 20 per cent. cuts to the police force at a time when our Labour Government have been responsible for the recruitment of 600 extra police officers. The Leader of the Opposition visited Cardiff and south Wales last week to campaign for the Conservative party. A passer-by—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will leave it at that.
    Albert Owen: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that one of the most effective

    283
    ways in which to deal with youth offending is to empower young people in their communities? Will he join me in congratulating the community first programme in my constituency which has several young people-led projects that are reaping dividends and giving ownership to young people in their communities? Does he agree that only the return of a Labour Government in Wales on Thursday will ensure that we have the sustainable financing for such programmes?
    Peter Hain: Yes. I was in Holyhead in my hon. Friend's constituency on Monday morning, and there are many excellent projects to tackle antisocial behaviour. I was also in the constituency of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), yesterday where an important project involving community safety wardens is taking place as a result of record investment from the Labour Government in partnership with the Labour-led Welsh Assembly. After 1 May, majority Labour control of the Assembly will allow us to take that programme forward.

    Financial Support (Business)
    Richard Younger-Ross: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on financial assistance for Welsh companies. [109789]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Regular ones.
    Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Secretary of State for such an insightful and helpful response.
    Although I wish the First Secretary of the National Assembly every success in creating jobs for workers in Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman raise the concerns of my constituents who work for Aircraft Materials Ltd. who face redundancy because the company is relocating to Wales with the help of regional selective assistance from the Welsh Assembly? When he meets the First Secretary will he tell him that it is a waste of taxpayers' money to move jobs from one part of the UK to another—and to stop poaching English jobs?
    Peter Hain: The answer to that is an emphatic no. The alternative plan for Aircraft Materials Ltd., which is a US-owned company, was to locate the jobs in the United States. Under the rules applied rigorously and scrupulously for regional selective assistance, we were able to safeguard those jobs and increase them in the rest of the UK instead of allowing them to be exported to the US. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, although I understand his concern as a constituency Member of Parliament.
    Denzil Davies: Although Corus is not a Welsh company, it has a substantial presence in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend assure not only the First Secretary but all of us that should Corus ask the
    284
    Government for financial assistance, it will not be ruled out, given that it would be unthinkable for Britain, and Wales in particular, to be without a steel industry?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend and we will consider what we can do, both through the National Assembly and elsewhere, to ensure that we have the most competitive and excellent steel-making company in Britain, including, of course, Wales.
    The Corus announcement yesterday was excellent news for Port Talbot. There are to be an extra 35-plus jobs and a huge investment to increase production from 3.7 million to 4.7 million extra tonnage. At least the reduction in jobs at Llanwern was relatively small. Obviously it was unwelcome given that the Llanwern workers have been battered and bruised over so many years by Corus. It was good at least to see a secure and sustainable future for both Llanwern and Port Talbot. That will have the full support of the Labour Assembly and a Labour Government.
    Adam Price: On a number of occasions over the past nine months, I have written to Assembly Government officials drawing attention to the alleged financial irregularities at Elev8, a call centre based in my constituency that the Secretary of State recently visited. The company went into receivership yesterday, with a loss of more than 60 jobs. Is not that yet more evidence of the failure of the Labour-Liberal Administration to bring jobs to all parts of Wales? What does the future hold for the Amman valley, which he and I represent?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman really should stick to the facts and stop relying on smears. The truth is that unemployment in his constituency has been cut significantly. Employment across Wales increased by nearly 60,000 last year. He should be attacking the unemployment in the Tory years rather than Labour's efforts to increase jobs because we have cut unemployment substantially.
    I did visit the call centre and what has happened is regrettable, but the fact is that new jobs are being created all the time in our valley constituencies and right across Wales. The hon. Gentleman should stop talking down Wales and support the investment and efforts that are being made to start-up businesses all over the country.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If financial assistance is given by the Welsh Assembly to companies such as Corus, what assurances can the Secretary of State give us that that money will be used to secure Welsh jobs, and that it will not go into the pockets of fat cat directors to further enrich themselves and sacrifice workers throughout Britain?
    Peter Hain: As far as I am aware, Corus has not asked for any support in terms of extra grant aid or any other facility that could be approved by the Welsh Assembly or by the Department of Trade and Industry, but no doubt we would consider such a request if it came. My hon. Friend is right. There is a revolt by shareholders and pension fund representatives at the way that representatives and directors who have failed in their jobs often walk away with huge bonanzas. That is not

    285
    acceptable, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is examining the matter. With reference to the workers who are to lose their jobs at Corus, that is a particular attack on their rights, and it must not be allowed to continue.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: With regard to Welsh business's lack of growth, is it not the case that the Government are the problem, not the solution? We have had the national insurance tax increases that have just clobbered Welsh businesses, the climate change levy, the landfill tax, fuel tax increases, business tax increases and red tape that means, on average, 15 new regulations on business every working day. It is no wonder that we have seen some huge job losses in Wales since the Government came to power. When will the Government get off the back of business and give it a chance?
    Peter Hain: When will the hon. Gentleman rely on facts instead of rhetoric? That is the question. Let us look at the facts. Three thousand more businesses were created in Wales last year. There has been a higher startup rate of businesses than in any other region of the United Kingdom, owing to Labour's support policies for Welsh businesses. There is a lower failure rate of businesses than in any other region of the United Kingdom, owing to the support that the Labour Government are putting into the Welsh economy. That is a record to be proud of, compared with the Tory record of record bankruptcies, record high unemployment and record collapse in manufacturing across Wales.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State says, "Let us look at the facts", so let us do so. We have had Welsh agriculture on its knees under the present Government, and Welsh manufacturing has been decimated. It is incredibly difficult to get objective 1 money because it is so difficult for small businesses to work through all the red tape. The Federation of Small Businesses chairman, Gwyn Evans, has stated that public liability insurance premiums are crippling small businesses because they have shot up in price. One beneficiary of the insurance increases that are crippling business is the Government, who take a percentage of the premiums in tax. While the Chancellor is laughing all the way to the bank, do the Government feel no embarrassment about their windfall tax gain, or do they just consider it a nice little earner, like all their other stealth taxes?
    Peter Hain: What would happen to Welsh businesses that are in receipt of a great deal of grant aid and support from the National Assembly and the Government when the Tories cut spending on Welsh businesses by 20 per cent.? There would be massive, savage cuts in support for businesses right across Wales. What have we done for small businesses? We have abolished stamp duty to cut the cost of property purchases in areas of Wales, we have enhanced appreciation allowances to cut the cost of land clearance and tackling dereliction, and there is the prospect of enhanced capital allowances to cut the cost of initial investment, and community investment tax relief to cut the cost of risk capital. The Government are friends of business, creating more businesses and more jobs in
    286
    Wales than ever before. A record level of employment was created last year, with a 60,000 rise in employment in Wales as a result of the Government's excellent policies.

    Tourism
    Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the tourism policy for Wales. [109790]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Tourism is a major contributor to the Welsh economy. It contributes some £2 billion per annum and provides employment for around 100,000 people in Wales.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that the Welsh tourist industry is protected from the SARS virus, which is spreading across the world? That needs to be taken into consideration, especially after the Government's handling of the foot and mouth crisis.
    Peter Hain: Advice has been issued to schools and colleges in Wales on pupils returning from infected areas, and we are following the policy recommended by the World Health Organisation to the letter, making sure that the issue is treated responsibly, but without raising unnecessary alarm, and that has resulted in a situation where just six cases have been reported—none in Wales—and all of those are on the road to recovery.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend recall the hugely successful eurozone experiment at Llangollen's musical eisteddfod last year, and does he agree that early entry into the European monetary system would help and enhance tourism throughout Wales?
    Peter Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his experiment at the international musical eisteddfod in Llangollen last year. I shall be visiting the festival this July and I look forward to a similar experience. Obviously, the United Kingdom will benefit from joining the euro when the economic circumstances are right, and that is why we shall not rush into this recklessly, but will do so carefully, after the Chancellor has made his economic assessment, and only if that economic assessment is positive.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with colleagues in the National Assembly Government on the impact of the winter fuel payments on pensioners in Wales. [109791]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): At a meeting before the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that 117,600 households in Wales with someone aged over 80 would benefit from an additional £100 winter fuel allowance on top of the existing £200.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional £100 for the over-80s on top of the

    287
    £200 original winter fuel payment, the pension credit and free local transport in Wales for pensioners will ensure that every pensioner in Wales will turn out and re-elect a Labour-led Administration in tomorrow's ballot?
    Peter Hain: I am sure that that will be the case. We know that the Tories would scrap the winter fuel allowance and cut all the extra support that we have provided for pensioners, including free television licences for the over-75s. In respect of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chapman.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the Dee estuary. [109792]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Chapman: The Dee estuary is a place where significant industrial activity sits alongside extremely important environmental sites, and the cockle fishing industry is a significant commercial activity, with equally significant ecological implications. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging that for the next cockle fishing season we have a more strictly controlled issue of licences, and that in the longer term we have a regulatory order that balances the interests of all sides of the argument?
    Mr. Touhig: I support my hon. Friend in encouraging sustainable development of this activity, but control and management of the Dee cockle fishery is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, which has proposed putting in place a regulatory order to manage the cockle beds, including licensing a much smaller number of gatherers. That is now being considered by Ministers at DEFRA and at the Assembly, and at the appropriate time they will submit a formal application.

    Agriculture
    Angela Watkinson: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales regarding agriculture in Wales. [109793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Minister and I meet the Assembly Agriculture Minister and DEFRA Ministers to discuss a variety of issues, including the future of agriculture in Wales.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will appreciate the importance of agricultural shows in helping to restore the fortunes of livestock farming in Wales, many of which take place within a few days of one another, and the six-day rule for the movement of animals will cause a serious problem with a reduction in the number of
    288
    exhibits, rendering some of them unviable. Will the Minister consider making an exception to the movement of animals to agricultural shows in Wales this year?
    Mr. Touhig: I understand the hon. Lady's point, which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made earlier, but the veterinary advice that I have is strongly against providing any exemptions to the six-day rule. The view is that the rule provides the best balance between ensuring a limited amount of animal movement and protecting the industry from future problems of the sort that have beset it in the past year or so, so I cannot really offer any hope that that can change.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the Prime Minister read this week's report, "Sustainable Communities in the South East" from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, and note this remark in the summary:
    "The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, has not been fully assessed"?
    Why are these houses being imposed on the south-east by central Government and why are the councillors who are being elected tomorrow so unfit to make those decisions for themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall study the report, but the hon. Gentleman will know that it is important that we increase the number of houses to supply houses for people to live in. He will also know that we have tried to ensure that those developments happen in particular areas. I do not think that it is either right or responsible to suggest that, whatever Government were in power, we would not still want to proceed with a housebuilding programme. What we are doing, however, is proceeding in a much more controlled way with a much higher percentage of development on brownfield sites than on greenfield sites. We have increased the amount of area in the green belt.
    Mr. John McFall: The Prime Minister will be aware of the report of the Select Committee on Treasury on Europe and the UK, which was published this week and provides for the first time a comprehensive and balanced study of the issue. It says that, whatever decision is taken, there will be risks, opportunities, costs and benefits, but inaction in itself will be a powerful

    289
    decision. Given that the UK is at the bottom of the league in terms of public knowledge and understanding, can he assist by indicating where the euro features in his political agenda?
    The Prime Minister: First, I welcome the report of my hon. Friend's Committee, which I think was an excellent contribution to the debate. He will have to wait for the outcome of the tests, which will be published by the Government in due course, within the time limit that we have set. I have no doubt at all that that will then stimulate a very lively debate in the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the primary school governor who said:
    "our most needy children … stand to lose most"
    from the way in which the Government have fixed school funding?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree that there are obviously schools in London and elsewhere that are facing particular problems at the moment. We are looking urgently into whether the money that has been allocated to local education authorities has been passed on properly to schools, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, in cash terms, there is an almost 12 per cent. increase for our education system in this country. Of course, it is better that we increase the investment going to our schools rather than have a 20 per cent. cut in schools investment across the board.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Those are the words of Fiona Millar, one of the Prime Minister's closest Downing street advisers. She did not do what he has just done and blame councils; she blamed the Government. Just like thousands of teachers, parents and governors, they know that he has been in power for six years and that he is to blame. But if he does not agree with her, does he agree with the deputy head who said:
    "There are major budget problems right here in schools in Mr. Miliband's constituency. He should come to schools here if he doesn't believe it"?
    Well, does the Prime Minister believe her?
    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that there are problems for particular schools and in particular local education authority areas. On Friday, we will publish an analysis of exactly what money has gone to local education authorities and how it has been used. The one thing that is undeniable, since he raised the issue of the six years of this Government, is that we have put more money and investment into our schools than ever before. Indeed, since we are quoting individual constituencies, let me quote his for a moment. In the past few years, it has received an extra £770 per pupil in Waltham Forest. It now has a £200 million project to deliver improvements to all 92 schools in Waltham Forest. The number of infants in class sizes of more than 30 has fallen from 1,000 to nothing in Waltham Forest, and it has the best primary school results and GCSE results that it has ever
    290
    had. That is all as a result of six years of Labour Government, with every penny piece of that investment opposed by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: May I just say to the Prime Minister that in my area, the authorities are proposing to cut three special needs schools that have run out of money because of the Government? Before he starts making claims, he should find out the facts. He should listen to somebody else—Dame Jean Else, who is not just any head teacher, but the head of one of his flagship schools, whom he personally honoured. She says that she would rather resign than sack any teachers and see her school suffer. As heads like her up and down the country have to make decisions about sacking teachers, will the Prime Minister tell the House how many extra bureaucrats he has employed at the Department for Education and Skills since he became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the number of bureaucrats. I can tell him, however, the number of extra full-time equivalent teachers that we have had since this Government came to power—it is 25,000. If it is correct, as he says, that schools have problems—I have accepted that there are obviously schools with certain problems—the answer to those problems is not to cut back on the investment that they have received. The fact of the matter is that none of the investment that is now going into schools up and down the country would be happening if we adopted the policy that he advocates and made a 20 per cent. cut in services across the board. That is the Conservative policy, which would be a disaster for our schools. It may well be that some schools want more money, but his policies would mean less money.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer to the question is that the number of bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Skills has grown by 25 per cent. since 1997. It is the usual story: under this Government—under Labour Governments—bureaucrats do well. The extra money that the Government have given to schools, as he says, is money that he has taken away through extra taxation and changes to pension requirements—money that is taken away with the other hand. With council taxes up 60 per cent. and school services being cut across the country, is it not the real case that Labour tax more, waste more and deliver less?
    The Prime Minister: Just take our school system—it is indisputable that over the past few years we have had the best primary school results that the country has ever seen; we have had the best GCSE results that the country has ever seen; we have had extra investment going into school buildings and schools in every constituency; and we have had 25,000 extra teachers. So the real distinction is this: yes, of course, people will always want even more money, but we are putting record investment into our schools, and if people vote for the Conservatives they are voting for a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut in services. That is the simple truth that he cannot deny.
    Vera Baird: Yesterday, Corus announced that Redcar steelworks is to be disaggregated from the rest of the firm and will have to sell its raw steel in a

    291
    steeply competitive world market. I can tell the House that that will be very hard indeed. We reacted positively by setting up a group of stakeholders—the regional development agency, the local council and other local enterprises—to work with Corus to look for a solution. The Prime Minister needs no reminder that if we fail and the plant closes, the number of jobs lost will probably be 12,000 or more. Teesside workers are very staunch in adversity. May I ask the Prime Minister, firstly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Lady is not in the law courts. She should ask just one question.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for the advice, Mr. Speaker, but this is obviously a big issue. I must ask the Prime Minister first, secondly, and altogether: can we have all the help that the Government can give in our fight for survival, and will he take a personal interest in these excellent workers who are threatened on the doorstep of his constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I would like to express my sympathy to any of my hon. and learned Friend's constituents and those of other hon. Members who may lose their jobs as a result of the closure that has been announced. The Department of Trade and Industry is in touch with the company, the work force and Dutch counterparts. We will do everything to minimise the impact. I know from my constituency experience that when jobs are lost, the Government have the ability through Jobcentre Plus and the Department for Work and Pensions to put in place a programme of rapid response to try to ensure that people are helped into other jobs. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that that full service will be available in her constituency.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that the hundreds of thousands of families who have not received the benefits to which they are entitled because of the Government's bungled reform of the child tax credit system will all be compensated by the end of next week?
    The Prime Minister: Those applications are being processed as quickly as possible. Millions of people have already received the benefits to which they are entitled and we will make sure that those who are eligible for the entitlement receive it as quickly as possible. I point out that hundreds of thousands of families will gain enormously as a result of the changes.
    Mr. Kennedy: That is less categorical than the assurances that the Paymaster General gave in the House only on Monday. Thousands of families with children are suffering now because the money is not coming through. When people are late paying their tax, the Revenue is quick to impose penalties. Is the Prime Minister considering recompensing people in the same way?
    The Prime Minister: I stand entirely by what the Paymaster General said on Monday. Some 2 million claims have been processed this week and we are making every effort to deal with the new system as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman should understand
    292
    that, in the end, it will enormously benefit millions of families throughout the country. There have been difficulties with processing some of the claims and we shall resolve them as quickly as possible.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I remind the Prime Minister of his written parliamentary reply on 19 December 2001 to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in which he reaffirmed the doctrine of his predecessor, Lord Wilson, that no Members of Parliament would have their telephones tapped? Will he comment on the fact that the telephone conversations of Jonathan Powell with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and the then right hon. Member for Redcar were tapped? The Prime Minister said that he would make an exceptional statement to the House if and when any Member of Parliament's telephone was tapped. It is not a question of personality but of principle: Members of Parliament's telephones should not be tapped. The Prime Minister is in charge of the security and intelligence services; they have been insubordinate and are not subject to proper control and scrutiny by this place.
    The Prime Minister: I understand why my hon. Friend raises the issue. I simply say that I reconfirm the Wilson doctrine but I do not and will not comment on security matters.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. John Burnett: I have given notice of my question to the Prime Minister's office. More than 1,000 jobs in my constituency depend on Appledore Shipbuilders. It is the last commercial shipyard in the country. Worldwide commercial shipbuilding is in deep recession and Appledore is fast running out of work. The shipyard has nearly secured a contract to build a large offshore construction vessel. There is considerable equity in the project, but the banks have demanded a Government loan guarantee. Such guarantees are available to our European Union and other competitors. The company has been in negotiations for a guarantee with the Department of Trade and Industry for a long time. Will the Prime Minister give us his support so that we get the loan guarantee and the contract as soon as possible? We shall use plenty of British steel in the process.
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his question. The Government are well aware of the long-standing importance of Appledore Shipbuilders to the local economy and recognise the difficulties that the company experiences. I know that the hon. Gentleman has made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions. The hon. Gentleman knows that discussions about the orders that are being sought are commercially sensitive. They are currently taking place and it would not be right for me to disclose the details of the outcome of the deliberations. However, I assure him that those making the decisions will listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and that the company will be

    293
    weighed in the balance with others that are bidding for the work. We understand the importance of the home credit scheme; approximately £120 million has been made available to the sector as a result of it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are doing everything possible to help his company.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I would like to place on record an appreciation of the Herculean efforts that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach are making to establish peace in all Ireland and to re-establish the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister give the House a brief assessment of the current situation, and a confirmation that the elections will take place on 29 May? Further, in his assessment of the assurances of non-violence, will he take it on board that violence is occurring on a day-to-day basis? In my small home town last week, two people were shot, and three families were evicted by republican paramilitaries. The same is being done by loyalist paramilitaries. Words will not be adequate in these circumstances; action, and proof of action, is what is required to underpin our democracy.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks for an assessment of the situation: it is fraught and difficult for the very reason that he has just given. There can be no question of reconstituting the Government in Northern Ireland, as everyone wants to see, unless not only are the undertakings clearly given but the actions follow those undertakings. That is why we have proposed a system in which we ensure that people cannot engage in paramilitary violence or activity if they wish to be associated with any party that is in government in Northern Ireland, and in which we have a proper system of verification and sanctions in respect of people who breach that undertaking. I very much hope that we can still make progress, but time is obviously running out for this. The whole basic principle of the Good Friday agreement is that we implement what is in it on the basis that everyone is committed to exclusively peaceful means. Until we can be clear on that, there is not a basis for reconstituting the Government in Northern Ireland.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Prime Minister really believe that the council tax system that he inherited from the Conservatives is the fairest way of raising money for local government services, and that the bills that people have just received are fair costs for the services delivered at local level?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that there is an extensive debate about the best way to conduct local authority taxation. Whatever system we have has its flaws, and this is obviously a system that we inherited. I have to say, however, that even if we look at the alternative systems, those who advocate them are not always willing to be very open about their implications. Indeed, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me this opportunity; I was hoping that I might get it from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). It has to be said that the briefing note from the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the council elections raises the issue—in addition to the
    294
    fact that the average council tax is lower in Labour areas, let me say—of the local income tax, which is part of the Liberal programme. It states that
    "we are happy to say we would expect an average of around 3 per cent.",
    in terms of the increase in income tax as a result of that policy. The briefing then goes on to say:
    "however, we don't want to be drawn extensively into this".
    [Laughter.] So, I think that it is now time for the Liberal Democrats, having started the debate, to lead it on this issue.
    Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister accept that, when crime is falling but the fear of crime is rising, it is important that policing should provide reassurance to the public? Will he therefore congratulate the police community action team based at Risley in my constituency, whose commitment to community policing has brought about a significant reduction in nuisance and antisocial behaviour in that area? Will he also assure the rest of my constituents, who do not yet have the benefit of such teams, that his Government will encourage the spread of this form of community policing and will ensure that it is properly funded?
    The Prime Minister: We will encourage the spread of that community policing. It is extremely important and I congratulate those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have made such a difference on antisocial behaviour. Of course, the new legislation that is coming up, both on the criminal justice system and in the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, will give us an opportunity across the House to take action on an issue that is of enormous importance to our constituents. That is why I hope that the Bill, when it is introduced, will receive support from every quarter of the House. It will allow the police to impose the penalties that they want, and allow us to bring people who transgress and commit antisocial behaviour to court quickly and to have the right range of penalties so that those people are dealt with properly.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On the issue of European defence, the Prime Minister said to the House that
    "it would be a tragic mistake … if Britain opted out of the debate on European defence and left the field to others."—[Official Report, 13 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 22]
    Yesterday, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg met to discuss European defence. Why was not Britain involved?
    The Prime Minister: For a very simple reason: four countries were involved yesterday and 11 were not. We are part of the 11.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality of not being involved with the others, as the Prime Minister rightly says, is the fact that he started this whole process at St. Malo years ago. He now has seen and will witness the fact that he has become a spectator while others shape the Euro

    295
    army to break NATO, so he has no one to blame but himself. It is clear from yesterday that the Germans want a separate budget, that the Belgians want a separate headquarters—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The French want nothing to do with the Americans at all, so if that is the case, does the Prime Minister not agree that he started this and that it was his big idea? He kick-started it and now they are driving off without him.
    The Prime Minister: No. The very reason why the meeting was held yesterday is that those countries were not satisfied with our initiative, which tied European defence to NATO. That is precisely why they felt the need to do what they did yesterday. That is why it was not a good idea for us to be there. [Interruption.] Actually, the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that we should not have been there. [Interruption.] Yes. So we are in agreement, and that is a very good thing. [Laughter.] I have been a bit short of that recently.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The Prime Minister will no doubt have read the early-day motion standing in my name, which has been signed by a couple of Liberal Democrat colleagues, supporting the excellent work by the Electoral Commission in the "Who Cares?" campaign, which is trying to encourage turnout in the Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections. Does he share my disappointment that no nationalist or Conservative Member has seen fit to support it? One might suspect that they have an interest in keeping the turnout down.
    The Prime Minister: I simply say that, obviously, in the Welsh Assembly elections there is, as my hon. Friend indicates, a fundamental choice between either continuing with the Welsh Executive as constituted at present—they are looking after the interests of people in Wales—or waking up on Friday to the potential of a nationalist Executive who would do enormous damage and wreck Wales. They would end up with people being on a path towards separation of Wales from the United Kingdom. That is the one policy that the nationalists stand for, and therefore the one policy that they do not want to talk about.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: In my constituency, our schools are short of money, the tax credits are a shambles and remain unpaid, we have a failing hospital and we are short of 200 police officers. What my constituents want to know, Prime Minister, is this: given that we are paying more taxes, why, under your Government, does nothing work?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that there have been no results from the extra investment, but I have to say to him that, according to the figures that I have, in Hertfordshire local education authority,
    296
    which is his education authority, there are 500 more teachers. The number of infants in classes of over 30 is down from 11,500 in 1997 to under 400 today. The best results that his LEA has ever achieved in primary schools and in GCSEs were achieved under this Government.
    Mr. Prisk: You are starving them of money.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that we are starving them of money. I totally understand why people will always want more money going into health and education, but we have put a substantial amount in, and might I remind him that that investment—every penny of it—has been opposed by him? So when he is talking to his constituents, he may well make his criticisms of the Government, but perhaps he will then go on to explain why a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut would help.
    Tony Cunningham: I welcome the Government's commitment to improving access to higher education, but the problem for many of my constituents is that the nearest university is nearly a hundred miles away. A report that is due to be published soon deals with the provision of degree-level university courses in Cumbria. May I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in the report, which is vital to the people of west Cumbria?
    The Prime Minister: I will take an interest. I believe that Sir Brian Fender's report will be published shortly. Obviously decisions on funding must be made by the Higher Education Funding Council, but I know that my hon. Friend has made a very powerful case.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: If it eventually transpires that at the time of our invasion Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening this country, and that the Prime Minister led this country into war on the basis of a false assumption, will he resign?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, having refused to engage in all sorts of speculations, I refuse to engage in them now. Let me tell him, however, that I am absolutely convinced and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction. I simply suggest this to him, and to others who believe that somehow this was all a myth invented by us: I refer them first of all to the 12 years of United Nations reports detailing exactly what weapons of mass destruction were held by the then Iraqi regime. We are now, in a deliberative and considered way, investigating the various sites, and we will produce the analysis and the results of that investigation in due course. I think that when we do so, the hon. Gentleman and others will be eating some of their words.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will he resign?
    Phil Sawford: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the four Labour-controlled councils in Northamptonshire have set the lowest tax increases this year, and that the three Conservative councils have set the highest? With local elections taking place tomorrow, has he any advice for voters in Northamptonshire?
    Hon. Members: Vote Labour!
    The Prime Minister: Vote Labour: that is the advice.
    It is true that the average council tax is higher in Conservative than in Labour areas. That is one very important part of this. But it is also important, obviously, that we continue the additional investment in our local communities. That investment is supported by the Government—the extra help given to pensioners and other people in our local communities who need it. We can either keep that investment and that help for people, or we can take it out with the Conservatives' 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts.
    David Burnside: If and when the Northern Ireland Assembly election takes place on 29 May, and if the Provisional IRA has not totally stood down its full terrorist and criminal organisation and all its activities that make it impossible for my party, the Ulster Unionist party, to join a power-sharing Executive with it, will the Prime Minister encourage and support
    298
    the formation of a cross-community Executive so that we in Northern Ireland can benefit from the advantages of devolution?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment we are trying to ensure that everyone moves forward, and I hope that everyone does. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not think it very helpful or sensible to speculate on the circumstances in which people refuse to move forward with others.
    I made the speech that I made last October to indicate that people understood that there might be a period of transition: that political parties associated with paramilitary groups might make the transition from being parties prepared to have violence in one hand and political activity in the other to being parties committed to exclusively peaceful means. That period of transition is over. What must happen now, if the Government are to be reconstituted and to have any of the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, is a complete cessation of all paramilitary activity of whatever nature, followed by a process enabling us to put all the arms in Northern Ireland beyond use. Every single party must be committed to that. If the parties are not committed to that, it will be very difficult to reconstitute the Northern Ireland Government in the way that we want.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will accept—they have been very brave in the decisions that they have taken—that the Northern Ireland peace process has delivered an immense amount to the people of Northern Ireland. But we have reached the point of decision, where we need, as I have said before, acts of completion, and those acts have to be absolutely definitive for us to make progress now.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's the Chancellor off to?"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer may want to listen to this point of order, of which I have notified him. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting a point of order.
Mr. Howard: In your careful perusal, Mr. Speaker, of the 447 pages of the Finance Bill and the 659 unnumbered pages of the first volume of explanatory notes, you will, I am sure, have been absolutely astonished to come across a reference, in the note to clause 130, to the basic rate of income tax being 20 per cent. Is it not absolutely astonishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know the basic rate of income tax?
We already know that the Chancellor got all his forecasts wrong; that Customs and Excise is in chaos; that the implementation of the right hon. Gentleman's tax credit policy has resulted in a shambles; and that up to 1.7 million family firms are uncertain of their tax liability. Does not this latest example add further to the Chancellor's growing reputation for incompetence?
Now that this vital document has been shown to be completely lacking in credibility, will you, Sir, undertake to instruct the Chancellor to review all its other figures and to report the findings of that review to this House before Second Reading of the Finance Bill next Tuesday?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The explanatory notes on the Finance Bill are entirely the responsibility of the Treasury. It is for the Government to determine how this matter can be corrected, which I am sure they will wish to do. Ministers will have heard what has been said and will no doubt take steps to ensure that the information provided to this House is accurate.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not see how there can be anything further to that point of order—I have been so clear in my answer.
Mr. Bercow: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you, and I seek your guidance. In
300
view of the importance of establishing the facts and correcting the record as quickly as possible, would it not be very useful if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were to step up to the Dispatch Box to explain the position, correct the error and wholeheartedly apologise to this House?
Mr. Speaker: That would be no more useful than the hon. Gentleman giving me a point of order.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the continuing use of the ministerial correspondence unit to draft Ministers' replies to letters from Members of Parliament. Is it in order for a Minister to whom I wrote—about a very serious policy matter, backed by more than 20,000 signatures on a petition—not to sign the reply to me? Is it not a gross insult to me, and to those who asked me to raise the matter, for the Minister to leave it to his civil servant to "pp" the letter on his behalf?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this particular practice is acceptable; it is not a matter that I am responsible for.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    EUROPEAN UNION (ACCESSIONS) BILL
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Hoon and Ms Secretary Hewitt, presented a Bill to make provision consequential on the treaty concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, signed at Athens on 16th April 2003; and to make provision in relation to the entitlement of nationals of certain acceding States to enter or reside in the United Kingdom as workers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 98].

Park Home Reform
12.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Park Homes in order to introduce transparency and consistency into their acquisition and disposal; to amend the model standards relating to Park Homes residents to bring them into line with the standards practised in local authority and housing association property; to give statutory recognition to Park Homes Residents Associations; and to make provision in respect of the accounts of the parks and the homes sited thereon.
Nearly 200,000 people live in park homes in England and Wales. In my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton, I have had regular discussions with residents, particularly with those living in the Cat and Fiddle park at Clyst St. Mary and the Underhill park in Tiverton.
In 2000 a report of the park homes working party was welcomed by all who take an interest in park homes, particularly by the all-party park homes group. In November 2001 the Government responded to the recommendations of the park homes working party and the Bill is designed to implement some of those recommendations. Indeed, last year, the Minister, Lord Rooker of Perry Barr, told the all-party group that the Government might support a private Member's Bill.
It is disappointing that no mention is made of park homes reform in the housing section of the Local Government Bill that was published last month and is intended to come before the House in the next Session. The Minister informed us in correspondence that, although the draft Bill is out to consultation, park homes will not be included. I would like to use today's ten-minute Bill debate to identify the key areas of reform in the hope that the Government will think again.
Most parks have residents who own their homes, but pay a rent for the pitch on which they are sited to the park owner, who has responsibility for the shared site amenities. All too often there is unnecessary tension between residents and park owners, and in some cases the resolution of site problems can be described only as anachronistic. I believe that, under properly constituted agreements, owners should recognise residents associations in the same way that councils and housing associations are required to work with their tenants. For example, it is not unreasonable for an unambiguous complaints procedure and a consultation framework to be established and for the owner to be represented at the residents' annual general meeting. It is also important that the local authority responsible for the authorisation of the site licence should recognise a properly constituted residents association.
The acquisition and disposal of homes is another area where change is needed. In October last year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a document that it had commissioned on the economics of the park homes industry. However, in a written answer, the Minister stated that the Government do not intend to respond to the report's recommendations.
I should like to outline some of the specific issues identified by the working party that continue to be of concern to residents, in relation to which reform is now urgent. The park owner has to give the home owner,
302
within three months of coming on to the park, a written statement setting out the owner's rights and the express terms that are not covered by legislation. Three months is far too long. There is no requirement for the statement to be signed or witnessed, which is another omission. The Government agreed in their response to the conclusions in the consultation document that best practice is required in that area.
The current legislation does not allow statements to include a right of first refusal for the park owner to purchase the home, but all too often that is written into the statement and many residents have gained the impression that they are obliged to offer back their home, if they wish to dispose of it, to the owner of the site. The rules relating to those statements need to be tidied up and put on a statutory basis and should include provision for the home to be assigned.
The standard agreement states that annual increases in pitch fees should be mindful of inflation. That requires greater transparency, because last year's report showed an upward drift in pitch rents in real terms. It has been an ongoing problem for residents and the lack of information on fees leads to resentment. Moreover, people in other areas of housing—for example, those who pay a service charge—would at least expect to have a breakdown of the figures. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
There is also the current unsatisfactory arrangement by which the site owner acts as an agent between the resident and the manufacturer when the resident purchases a new home. That prevents the resident from purchasing directly from the manufacturer. That, I believe, is an inequity, and needs revision to ensure fairness to the tenant who wishes to purchase a new home, and to provide a safeguard to the park owner who wishes to maintain the integrity of the park.
It is also unsatisfactory that park owners can terminate an agreement on the grounds that a home's age and condition have a detrimental effect on the site. Home owners can also argue that it could have such an effect within a five-year period. Although it is of course acknowledged that the park benefits from properties being well maintained, the current rule is arbitrary, not least because of the incentive for the park owner to replace old for new. The weakness in the current legislation is that it does not define age and condition, and neither does the law identify the statutory procedure for operation of the five-year rule. The current rules allow for unscrupulous park owners to bring agreements to an end in order to drive down selling prices. In my own experience it is often the very elderly or, in some cases, the beneficiaries of an estate, who feel this pressure most.
When responding to the proposal that the age criterion should be replaced by a criterion based on the condition of the exterior of the home, the Government responded that they agreed, not least because of the recommendations that they received from the consultees. The Government have also acknowledged in principle that amending the five-year rule or its replacement with a warnings procedure would ensure fair treatment for home owners. If this ten-minute Bill is about anything, it is about fair treatment for home owners.

303
At a time when affordable housing is so much on people's minds, park homes offer an alternative, but there is an underlying sense of frustration at the fact that people living in park homes have somehow been left behind when it comes to enjoying the practices in other areas of housing that others take for granted. There is a lack of transparency in transactions and of choice on acquisition; out-of-date rules apply that hinder communications between residents and park owners; and of course park home residents need to be brought within the scope of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977—something that I believe is long overdue. There is also a need for parks owned by local authorities to be licensed in the same way as privately owned parks. That is something that I believe the Bill should encompass.
I hope that the Government will heed this short Bill, and the recent reports of the park homes committee. I also hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the next Local Government Bill to rectify the problems that I have set out. In the Government's responses to the working party paper, they appear to concur with many of the recommendations, some of which I have outlined today.
The working party first sat in 2000. The Government responded in 2001 and commissioned an independent report on the economics of park homes. I welcome all that, but it is a matter of concern that the Government will for some reason not go that final step and embrace the opportunity to ensure that the legislation is put on the statute book. Indeed, in a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said:
"We anticipate that mobile homes reform will be wide ranging and fundamental and in order to ensure that the resulting legislation is fully sound, workable and will stand the test of time it will be necessary to prepare it sufficiently."
I do not disagree with that, as the same applies to any legislation brought before this House. I hope that the Government will pay heed to a matter that affects many thousands of constituents, and that they will include the provisions that I propose in their own Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Christopher Chope, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Philip Hammond, Mr. Michael Jack, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Martin Salter and Mrs. Angela Watkinson.

Park Home Reform
  PARK HOME REFORM
  Mrs. Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to Park Homes in order to introduce transparency and consistency into their acquisition and disposal; to amend the model standards relating to Park Homes residents to bring them into line with the standards practised in local authority and housing association property; to give statutory recognition to Park Homes Residents Associations; and to make provision in respect of the accounts of the parks and the homes sited thereon: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL [MONEY (NO. 2)]
  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 purpose of any Act resulting from the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with a referendum held about proposals for the reorganisation of local government.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (PREPARATIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26th November 2002:
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
  Subsequent stages
  2. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  3. The proceedings on any Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments No. 3, 17, 18 and 34, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to the Lords amendments, I will ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUMS
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      12.47 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 10.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have before us 35 amendments arising from consideration of the Bill in the other place. On the surface, that number may seem large, but in fact it mainly reflects just one extension of our policy: to give people a choice about their regional governance arrangements. That emerged from discussions that initially began in Committee in this House, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) raised the issue. Subsequent discussions between us and the Liberal Democrats led to the Liberal Democrat amendment that was moved in the other place.
      We agreed that those living in two-tier areas should have a say in the form of unitary local government introduced in their area if an elected assembly is established, but our fundamental principle of unitary local government where there is an elected regional tier remains unchanged. I shall explain that further when we come to the next grouping, when we can debate the matter fully if hon. Members wish to do so. The other 18 amendments in that group and the 10 amendments in the final group simply give effect to the main amendment.
      We have listened carefully to the debate on the ouster clause, both in this House and in the other place.
      Joyce Quin: Although my right hon. Friend has pointed out that later we shall be able to consider in detail the amendment to which he referred, I warmly welcome the fact that the Government listened to representations on the issue and that they have acted in a way that gives people in the two-tier areas a real choice over their future.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years to promote the cause of regional government, especially in the interests of her own
      306
      region, the north-east, where I know that she has been extremely active. We have sought to listen carefully on that point and, indeed, other points. We believe that the Lords amendments will improve the Bill, and we approach them in an entirely non-partisan spirit.
      The ouster clause was a difficult issue, and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will give further consideration to it when we deal with it later. Once again, we have tried to find a practical way to meet the policy commitment to ensure that the results of a referendum could not be challenged purely as a result of a frivolous or unserious criticism, while retaining the opportunity for legal consideration if serious malpractice occurred. That has been our objective from the outset, and our new amendment is designed to achieve that.
      I turn to the first group of Lords amendments, which reflects amendments originally proposed by Conservatives in the other place. The Bill has faced vigorous debate and careful scrutiny in the other place, as it did in the House, and the amendments agreed to there improve and enhance the Bill, while remaining true to the principles that we have always advocated. So the Government will support all 35 Lords amendments, irrespective of whether they were originally proposed by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or the Government. I hope that that demonstrates both our willingness to listen to constructive criticism and to respond positively in a non-partisan spirit to proposals that will improve the Bill.
      Lords amendment No. 1 reflects an amendment moved in the other place by Baroness Blatch, who sought to simplify clause 1(6), to make it clearer how the level of interest test works. The Government are happy to accept Lords amendment No. 1. Lords amendment No. 2 is necessary to tidy up subsection (8) in the light of the changes to subsection (6). The current wording at the start of subsection (8) would no longer work, because subsection (6) no longer sets out the conditions or criteria that can apply or not apply.
      Lords amendment No. 2 is the neatest formulation that we can find to clarify clause 1, in addition to what it says in subsection (6), to allow an order to be made without active consideration of the level of interest. The Secretary of State can also order a regional referendum once he has considered views, information and evidence, as set out in subsection (8).
      Clause 5 sets out the minimum period, following a no vote in a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly, before a further referendum can be held. Lords amendment No. 10 was tabled by the Conservatives and accepted by the Government on Third Reading in the other place on Monday. It changes the minimum period from five to seven years. The Government listened carefully to the arguments adduced in support of that amendment, particularly by Lord Hanningfield, and were persuaded by them.
      Lengthening the minimum period by two years will ease the possible distraction to local authorities of a local government reorganisation without imposing an unduly long period before the population of a region can be given an opportunity to change its mind about

      307
      establishing an assembly. In effect, there will be at least five years between a referendum and the point at which the Government might initiate the process for a further referendum. That five-year period has always been our policy objective.
      We were conscious of the fact that the preliminary soundings would shorten that five-year period in practice, so the extension to seven years is designed to achieve the policy effect, while recognising the practicalities. That is an entirely sensible way forward. [Interruption.] The Opposition try to make fun of that, but they originally proposed 10-year or even 20-year minimum periods, which were clearly designed to obstruct the possibility for regions to have the opportunity to reconsider the issue in the light of experience.
      Those proposals were not acceptable to us because they did not allow for the fact that views might be reasonably expected to change over time, particularly in the light of experience where elected regional assemblies are set up. We were not happy with those amendments when they were moved in Committee, and Lords amendment No. 10, with the seven-year period, keeps to our original policy objective, while allowing for the practicalities that I have already outlined.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am sure that, just for the record, the Minister would like to remind the House that the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment that would have extended the length of time to six years. In Committee, the Minister ridiculed that amendment, but it seems as though it is close to the final outcome. I do not want to make too much of that, but, for the record, we should remind the House that that happened.
      Mr. Raynsford: As I said at the outset, we have tried to approach the issue in a wholly non-partisan spirit. We could not see the logic of the six-year period, and I pointed out in Committee that five years is the normal period for the duration of a Parliament, so there is good precedent for such a period. We could not understand the basis for having a six-year period.
      As a result of further consideration—we listened to a point that was made in another place—there will be a period during which soundings have to be taken before a referendum can be initiated. That period could be up to two years, which is why we have agreed to the seven-year period, so there is good logic behind the proposal. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will know from other instances in the Bill, we are always happy to engage in constructive debate and to make practical improvements to the Bill, and in no way do I wish to sound churlish about his contribution to improving the Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister very nearly got through the first group of Lords amendments with a straight face. As he said, Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were, in one case, introduced by my noble Friends in the other place and, in the other case, by the Government, as a tidying up exercise. They are good amendments, which represent
      308
      an attempt to make marginally more intelligible the very complex language of clause 1, and they are certainly an improvement.
      Sadly, all this is still slightly academic because clause 1(9) will still allow the Secretary of State to cancel a referendum at any time if he considers that it is not appropriate, having ordered it to take place. In other words, if the Secretary of State determines that the process is not going the way that he had hoped and it does not look as though he will win his referendum, he can pull stumps and cancel the whole show. That would be regarded, in everyday language, as somewhat loading the dice in the Deputy Prime Minister's favour. Up to the last minute, he can cancel the referendum if he feels that he is losing the argument.
      I am waiting for the Government to introduce a Bill that would provide a similar facility for general elections. It would be very convenient for the Prime Minister if he were able to call a general election and, two and a half weeks later, decide to cancel it by order because it did not look as though things were going quite the right way.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 improve the language of the Bill because they slightly clarify the intention without fundamentally changing the meaning of clause 1. Lords amendment No. 10 is different. As the Minister has acknowledged, my hon. Friends and I argued for a 10-year gap between referendums. We deployed precisely the same logic as Lord Hanningfield deployed in arguing in the other place that the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government is bound to be debilitating to local government and to impact negatively on its principal business, which is to get on with delivering good quality services to the people whom its tiers serve.
      It is simply not desirable to have local government areas where a referendum has been held, perhaps the argument for an elected regional assembly has been lost by a modest margin, and it is clear to everyone that the Secretary of State will seek to go around the loop again at the earliest opportunity and put the question to a referendum again as soon as he is able to do so. In those circumstances, a short period will create a very high degree of uncertainly, possibly making it difficult for local authorities to recruit and retain good staff, when everyone can see on the horizon at least the possibility of reorganisation or abolition of those bodies, so we argued for a 10-year period.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I wish to try to reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Northumberland county council and the local district councils already have a problem with recruitment and retention, and people are looking over their shoulders and wondering whether they will have a future in a few years' time. That is causing considerable problems to local authorities today.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have heard some of the anecdotal examples quoted from the north-east, and there is a very real problem. The problem is not theoretical; it is having an impact right now on the ability of local authorities to carry out what I assume is the Government's shared objective with local authorities and, indeed, the

      309
      Opposition—delivering good quality services to local people—and they are not being helped by the introduction of further uncertainty.
      1 pm
      I remain of the view that 10 years would be a sensible period. Clearly, however, seven years is better than five. The Government vehemently defended their five-year proposition in this place, however, and as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has mentioned, they vigorously resisted his suggestion that a six-year period might be worth exploring. I am not sure why the Government, having vigorously rejected 10 years and six years, have concluded that seven years is acceptable. Five years was not selected by the Government as a random figure—it was not just plucked out of thin air—and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said in Committee:
      "A five-year period strikes the right balance … We want to strike the right balance and we believe that an interval of five years does that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 36.]
      He continued:
      "I think that the question of precedent was addressed in the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to be given additional justification … he should be made aware that a five-year period is the provision within the Local Government Act 2000 for repeat referendums on mayoral constitutional arrangements … There is another obvious logical reason why we decided on five years; that is the maximum period for the life of a Parliament. Therefore, we believe that five years is appropriate. There is a precedent for it and, above all, it is the right period of time … I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is now satisfied that five years is better than six."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 38–9.]
      The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), said much later:
      "The Government have not plucked that five-year figure from the air. As Members will know, five years is the maximum interval between general elections and is also the standard interval for European parliamentary elections. I believe that five years is the right interval."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 491.]
      It seems to me that the Government's stance is in strange contrast to their intransigence in the face of the range of suggestions and the rationale put forward at an earlier stage. The Under-Secretary mocked us in Committee when, after suggesting 20 years, we tried 10 years, to see how the Government would react. He remarked that the Opposition had changed their mind and by doing so had proved his point that five years was the optimum period. The Government are therefore also capable of changing their mind.
      On balance, therefore, seven is better than five but not as good as 10. What a display of synthetic self-righteous indignation we had to go through in Committee—I include the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in that—to reach the compromise of seven years. In future, when Ministers say that they have not plucked a figure out of thin air, that they have considered the matter long and hard and that they genuinely believe that it is the right solution to the problem, we will know exactly what they mean.
      Mr. Davey: We should welcome the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Runnymede and
      310
      Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right that we had a tough debate in Committee on this issue and that various propositions were put forward. The Government resisted them at the time, as they resisted every Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment on all aspects of the Bill. They listened to the weight of our argument, however, and while they tried to stare it down at the time, they were forced to consider it.
      In the other place, those arguments were strengthened. In this case, an argument from a Conservative peer persuaded them, and I am glad that Ministers reflected on those arguments and changed their mind. It is a matter of judgment, as I said in Committee, as to whether the period should be four years, five years, six years or seven years. It is question of striking the balance. In the Minister's initial statement, he tried to suggest that there was logic behind seven years. I am not sure whether I am convinced that there is logic; I think that it is a matter of judgment. If the House decides on seven years, I think that that is probably better than five: it means that the problems of instability in local government, to which the noble Lord Hanningfield referred in the other place, will be dealt with properly. It would be interesting if the Minister were to explain a little more of the logic of seven years, for the record. Therefore, should the House ever have to return to the point, we will at least be able to review the argument that was put at this time.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that there is broad agreement to the amendments. No Member objected to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a question about clause 1(9), which, of course, is not being amended. I should therefore correct his unfortunate impression that the Government would use that subsection to postpone a referendum if they felt that the right outcome was not likely: that is neither the intention nor the scope of the power, which allows the Secretary of State to vary or revoke an order if he thinks that it is not appropriate for a referendum to be held on the date specified.
      I explained in Committee, and perhaps I should explain again for the benefit of the House, that the date might have been fixed some time in advance because of the process involved, and that other circumstances might make it wise for the date to be varied and for postponement to take place—for example, a couple of years ago elections were postponed because of foot and mouth disease. The other obvious example would be a major state funeral, or an event of that nature, clashing with the date pre-arranged for a referendum.
      The other crucial safeguard is that any amendment must be made by an order subject to affirmative resolution. The somewhat underhand approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman is therefore not possible, so I hope that he will accept that it is necessary to include the safeguard in the Bill for good reason. It is not the subject of the Lords amendments, so I hope that we can pass over the issue rapidly.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I understand the Minister's explanation, and I understand why it may be necessary to vary the date of the order, but I cannot understand why he would feel it necessary to revoke it.
      Mr. Raynsford: There might be a significant change of circumstances between the date on which the

      311
      referendum was initially set and the date on which it was due to take place. The opportunity to postpone or revoke is therefore a necessary safeguard, but it is subject to affirmative resolution. If a Government wished to revoke, they would have to explain why. I can envisage circumstances in which, rather than postponing, it might be necessary to start from scratch and begin the soundings exercise again before a referendum was held—for example, where new evidence had come to light about whether there was a real interest in holding a referendum in a region. That is a necessary and useful safeguard, but the Government would have to justify the use of the power for that purpose. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there is nothing nefarious about that. The provision is entirely sensible and pragmatic to ensure efficient administration and to avoid possible illogicalities in the implementation of the policy intent.
      Mr. Hammond: The Bill clearly allows the Government not only to vary the date but to revoke the order. I thought that, in the Minister's initial response, he was reading into the record a limitation on that scope, making it clear that the Government would never use that to cancel a referendum that had been ordered, but in responding to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) I fear that he went backwards and confirmed that the Government could cancel a referendum that had been ordered.
      Mr. Raynsford: I thought I had already made it quite clear that the purpose of the power is simply to allow for a change of circumstances that might make it inappropriate for the referendum to proceed. One such circumstance would be a clash of dates, and that point has been widely accepted.
      The second circumstance that I set out was if, in the period between the initial date set for the referendum and the point at which the Secretary of State chose to introduce an order, it became clear that a material change in circumstances had occurred that might necessitate a further soundings exercise before the referendum. We have been through all these issues in considerable detail, because there is a process between the initial indication that a referendum will be held and the holding of the referendum. That process involves the boundary committee conducting a review of local government boundary arrangements and making recommendations for a wholly unitary structure of local government. That is a time-consuming process. In that time, circumstances can change, and it is obviously sensible to have provision to cope with that. I have explained why the provision is in the Bill. It is not a nefarious or suspect process; it is there for good administrative reasons.
      Mr. Graham Stringer: I would find it easier to accept my right hon. Friend's arguments if we were clear about the objective basis by which the Secretary of State would determine the level of interest in a region before the referendum process was set up. In Committee, my right hon. Friend repeatedly failed to explain what the objective basis would be. If we do not know what the objective basis is, how will we know whether it has changed?
      Mr. Raynsford: I did not repeatedly fail to give assurances. My hon. Friend may have repeatedly failed
      312
      to listen to the assurances, but that is a different matter. The Secretary of State is required to take soundings, and he will have to have regard to those soundings and could certainly be subject to legal challenge if he acted in a way that indicated that he had not had regard to them. In the circumstances that I have just described, an event could take place in the period during which the boundary committee was conducting its review—I have already referred to foot and mouth disease—that would make it inappropriate for the referendum to proceed on the given date. Indeed, a delay would be inevitable. If there were any suggestion that, as a result, the basis on which the Secretary of State had taken his decision about the soundings was no longer valid, he could be open to challenge if he had not had regard to evidence suggesting a change in the circumstances that had led him to call a referendum.
      Those are the circumstances—I do not think that they will happen often, but they could—that might require the Secretary of State not simply to postpone the date of a referendum, but to begin the process again. Obviously, there could be other circumstances—I hate to envisage them happening—in which a prolonged delay resulting from a major war or event of that nature would make it inappropriate to hold a referendum and wrong to postpone it indefinitely. Therefore, for practical reasons, there must be a power to terminate as well as to postpone. However, I hope that the House will recognise that there is a real safeguard, because the Secretary of State will be able to use the power only by means of an affirmative resolution. The House will have every opportunity to reject an order if it does not believe that there is good logic behind it.
      Andrew George: I appreciate that the Minister and his Department are optimistic that regions will proceed along the lines of the boundaries proposed, but to what extent do the Lords amendments, which I support in principle, allow for the fact that, as I and colleagues confidently predict, the Government will not succeed in achieving regional assemblies on the boundaries as currently proposed for certain areas? Do the material changes referred to in the amendments allow for the likelihood that certain regional assemblies will not be set up in the way that the Government hope by containing provisions for new boundaries to be proposed?
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in the boundaries for understandable reasons, but none of the amendments that we are considering today impacts on boundary issues. The Government have made clear their policy intention to proceed on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries. We have not precluded a further look at these matters in the longer term, but, in the short term, we are proceeding on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries.
      Other amendments in this group relate to the period between referendums. I make it clear once again to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that our objective has always been that there should be a five-year period between referendums. That was the basis on which we opposed his amendments in Committee and on which we rejected the Liberal Democrat amendments.

      313
      As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly pointed out, we considered the possibility that the practicalities and mechanics leading up to a referendum would bite into that five-year period. Lord Hanningfield made that point in the other place. The process of taking soundings and commissioning a boundary review could take up to two years out of the five-year period. In practice, rather than there being a five-year gap between referendums, there would be a three-year gap between a no vote and the beginning of the process. We accept the argument that that would be too short, would be disruptive and would have an adverse impact on local government.
      To stay true to our objective of a five-year period between disruption, we have accepted the amendment that allows for a seven-year period between referendums, because the preliminaries could take up to two years. It is a practical, pragmatic response. That is the logic, and there is sense behind it. I hope that hon. Members, who have broadly welcomed the outcome, will not continue to quibble about the precise way in which we are acting. It is a sensible response to genuine concerns voiced in this House and the other place.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister is now defining his objective as achieving a five-year window between, as he puts it, disruption. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has given a clear example of the way in which disruption is continuous if the threat remains hanging over local authorities. Does the Minister not believe that the threat of reorganisation will make it difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities to recruit and retain good staff in the intervening period?
      Mr. Raynsford: I do not accept that, because the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was making the point that we are currently engaged in a soundings exercise. That has naturally caused concern in authorities in two-tier areas, such as in his region, where, it is fair to say, as I have always said without anticipating the outcome of the exercise, objective evidence suggests that there probably is significant interest in holding a referendum. That is why we have accepted the amendment, as it deals with part of the period of up to two years leading to a referendum. However, once the referendum has been held, there will be a guarantee that there will be no further possibility of change for five years. That is the safeguard against the fear that the hon. Gentleman raised.
      Mr. Hugo Swire: I did not serve on the Committee, but I have taken a close interest in these matters and was proud to launch "Devon says no to regional government" last Friday. In the five-year window that the Minister is describing, how can he guarantee to those of who are sceptical about this regional odyssey that untold pressure will not be brought on councils in areas that rejected the referendum first time round or voted no? Will he guarantee that they will not be penalised in the intervening period and that no Government money will be used to soften them up for round two, which, if he
      314
      had his way, would be replaced by rounds three and four at five-year periods until an area was subjugated to following his line?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee because that might have helped to allay some of the paranoia that clearly affects his judgment. We have absolutely no intention of bringing pressure to bear; there will be a choice. Each region will be free to express its views in a referendum and we repeatedly made it clear that we do not expect all regions to express similar interest in an elected regional assembly. We do not wish to impose something universally. In fact, the Conservative party suggested that referendums should be held in every English region. That is not sensible because we know perfectly well that there is not a great deal of interest in some regions and we intend to hold referendums only where there is clear interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain his anxiety and realise that we are extending choice. We shall give people the opportunity to have an elected regional assembly if they wish, but we shall not impose one if they do not want it. We certainly do not intend to bring pressure to bear on individual local authorities to support an elected regional assembly in their region.
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I see that the hon. Gentleman cannot contain his excitement, so I shall give way once again.
      Mr. Swire: On the subject of regional government, I assure the Minister that I can contain almost everything. My party suggested that if a referendum is held in one area, referendums should be held in all areas because we believe that anything that involves such constitutional change should be subject to a referendum. I am still not happy because an area such as mine in Devon might well vote no the first, second and subsequent times, but be swamped and outvoted by other areas in the artificial creation that is the south-west region, such as the urban areas of Bristol and Swindon.
      Mr. Raynsford: There is probably little hope of dissuading the hon. Gentleman from the paranoia that has engulfed his approach to the issue. It is somewhat illogical for him to support an organisation called "Devon says no" while clearly advocating that a referendum should be held in Devon and everywhere else. He has not followed through the logic behind his position.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Surely the real difference between the proposals of this Government and the previous Tory Government is that we will give local people a say in their regions. Under the Conservative Government's county council reorganisation, Tyne and Wear county council was abolished despite the fact that no local person had any say.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. We are giving people a choice over whether they want an elected regional assembly and, if they do, a choice of the best form of local government reorganisation to accompany that. That is very different

      315
      from the actions of the Conservative Government when they abolished county councils such as Berkshire without giving people one iota of choice about it or any opportunity to express their opinions. The Conservatives abolished the Greater London council without giving people a choice. It is sheer humbug for Conservative Members to talk about giving people choice because they did no such thing when their party was in government.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister desist from saying that he proposes to give people choice about the form of local government reorganisation? He proposes no such thing. He proposes to allow people to express a preference among different forms of unitary local government reorganisation, but that is not a choice about the form of local government reorganisation.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should not try to put words in my mouth. I made it quite clear that we will allow people to choose the form of unitary local government that is most appropriate for their area. A proliferation of tiers of government is not right; indeed, I thought that the Conservative party thought it inappropriate to introduce more tiers. If people want a regional tier—it is their choice—it is right for local government to be reorganised into a single unitary tier so that there would be no more than two tiers of government below the national level—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though we are going very wide of the Lords amendments. Perhaps hon. Members could restrain themselves.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall be only too happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to tempt me down paths that you, Mr. Speaker, would not regard as appropriate.
      Mr. Atkinson: I hope not, although I might be treading on thin ice. I was hoping to explain to the Minister why my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and I are paranoid about the issue. The Minister said that there was strong interest in north-east England, but I refer him to a written answer that he gave me on 18 March to a question about the level of interest that resulted from his soundings exercise. He said that there had been 4,500 expressions of interest nationally, of which only 300 had come from the north-east. If he thinks that 300 replies from more than 2 million people represents an expression of strong interest, no wonder my hon. Friend and I are paranoid.
      Mr. Raynsford: I cannot speak for the paranoia of the hon. Gentlemen. They will have to answer for that to their electorates; the people of East Devon and Hexham might well say no to them in due course.
      The soundings exercise was designed to elicit responses from people and organisations. We made it clear that organisations, especially representative bodies, that sounded out their members' views or that
      316
      wished to express the views of a wider group should state that in their response so that their views could be given more weight than responses by individuals.
      As the hon. Member for Hexham knows, owing to a Lords amendment that we shall consider in the next group, we considered it right to extend the soundings period to allow people a further opportunity to comment in light of the change. We have therefore not completed the soundings exercise and it would be premature to comment on the level of interest expressed. I shall report back to the House when the extended soundings exercise has been completed, although I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been more responses than the numbers that he cited because we had received 5,500 by the end of the initial period, many of which came from organisations that had consulted widely, meaning that their responses covered the opinions of more people than would be indicated by the number of immediate responses. The exercise is important and we must await its outcome and responses to the extended soundings.
      It is sensible to allow five years between a no vote in a referendum and the time at which it is possible to reinitiate the process through soundings and a boundary committee consideration before holding a further referendum. That was why the period was extended from five to seven years. That is sensible and it meets our original policy objective of allowing five years without the prospect of reorganisation, which will be welcomed by local government. I hope that Opposition Members will not quibble about terminology and about what might have been said at different times but will instead welcome the proposal as a positive and constructive response to sensible comments made by people who want the best possible legislation to allow the people of England to have an elected regional assembly, if they wish, with the minimum of dislocation.
      Mr. Swire rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I hesitate to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I hope that he will not stray wide of the main subject of the amendments.
      Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to cure my paranoia. A region such as the south-west may reject the idea of regional government in a referendum, after which there will be five years before it is invited to reconsider. Will the unelected regional assembly disappear during that period?
      Mr. Raynsford: There are no proposals to abolish the regional chambers—or assemblies, as they are usually called—that were brought into existence because of the creation of regional development agencies. The chambers' purpose is to provide a framework for representatives from local government and from regions' other interests to oversee the work of RDAs. It is right that such a body should exist and one of an elected regional assembly's remits will be to take control of, and have oversight of, economic development activity and the work of RDAs. If that were to happen, the non-elected regional assembly would cease to exist. But where there is no elected regional assembly, or where people have voted against it, it is obviously sensible to continue to have a body that brings together

      317
      representatives of local government and others to maintain an oversight of the activity of the regional development agency. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so hostile to such a sensible arrangement to ensure the articulation of regional concerns about matters of economic development, which are important in every region. We have given more than sufficient time to this group of amendments—
      Mr. John Bercow: There is a lacuna in the Minister's argument. Given that in many cases there will be elected regional assemblies, but there will be considerable public scepticism as to the merit of their continuation, why should not the principle of a periodic referendum, which the right hon. Gentleman so warmly commended in the other context, apply in this context?
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: There is no amendment from the other place on our amendment paper today that covers that issue. I would not wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker, by going on to that territory. Suffice it to say that the issue was debated at length in Committee and decisively rejected. I hope that the amendments will now be agreed.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  After Clause 1
  Lords amendment: No. 3.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9, 11 to 19, 23, 34 and 35.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I have already explained, the Government accepted an amendment from the Liberal Democrats in the other place that those in two-tier areas should be given a say in the form of unitary local government arrangements that will be implemented if an elected assembly is to be established. As I have made clear on many occasions, we do not wish to see any increase in bureaucracy or duplication of tiers as a result of the introduction of elected regional assemblies. We believe that two tiers of government below the national level are enough. We also believe that unitary government will streamline government and lay the foundation for an effective working relationship between the regional and local tiers.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his speech, but could he clarify what he means by "given a say"? Will people be given a say in the sense that the electorate is given a say when voting for a Government in a general election, or will they be given a say in some different and less forceful sense?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. We believe that it is right that people should have the opportunity, through a referendum if there is an interest in their region in
  318
  holding a referendum, to decide whether they want an elected regional assembly. Every citizen entitled to vote on a local government electorate basis within that region will be entitled to vote on that issue too.
  There will be a second vote for people living in areas that have two tiers of local government—counties and districts—because implicit in the introduction of an elected regional assembly will be reorganisation of local government. They will have a vote about the preferred form of unitary local government for their area. That area could well be the county in which they currently live, or the counties that would be affected if proposals from the boundary committee suggested a form of local government reorganisation that crosses county boundaries, so provision must be made for that.
  There will be a second vote, affecting all the people living in areas where there is currently two-tier local government, on their preferred form of unitary local government. That is the proposal. It gives people a say in the way in which we normally understand the term in this country: through the ballot box in a democratic election. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hammond: Not quite. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that say will be decisive. Is he saying that the view expressed in the referendum will be binding, or will it merely be a factor that the Secretary of State will take into account?
  Mr. Raynsford: We have gone over the matter on many previous occasions. I have made it clear—because this was the issue in relation to the first vote on the question of whether there should be an elected regional assembly—that there could be circumstances in which the majority of people voting in a referendum would not be the final deciding point.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party raised questions about whether there should be a threshold, and the answer I gave was that we did not believe that there should be a threshold, because thresholds had an arbitrary impact. I gave the example of Scotland, where a particular threshold made it impossible for the people of Scotland who had voted in the late 1970s for a degree of devolved independence to enjoy that. They lost out for 20 years because of an arbitrary threshold, so we did not accept the idea of an arbitrary threshold. However, I said that the Secretary of State would give that consideration, and if it was felt that the level of participation in the referendum was so low that it did not provide a safe basis to proceed, we would have the discretion not to proceed.
  That is implicit in relation to the region. It is equally implicit in relation to local government reorganisation. If, for example, there were a very finely divided outcome between two options and a very large number of people expressing unhappiness with the options put to them, it is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State might feel that it was right to hold a second vote before deciding the outcome. Therefore, a degree of discretion remains with the Secretary of State. That is sensible, but it is our policy intention to give effect to the outcome of the votes in the referendum. Once again, as with the earlier discussions, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that

  319
  it is right that the Secretary of State should have that necessary degree of discretion to ensure good administration, for the reasons that I have outlined.
  Mr. Bercow: With all due respect, and the right hon. Gentleman knows the esteem and affection in which I hold him, that was a lengthy and entirely unsatisfactory answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). If the right hon. Gentleman complains about circumstances in which the verdict reached would be regarded as arbitrary, will he at least have the intellectual honesty to concede that to vest a capacity in Ministers to decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of the turnout is itself arbitrary?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about esteem. I am not quite so confident about the remarks about affection, but we will pass over that. I hope that he will understand that in these matters, if we are not to have a hard and fast decision rule in legislation, a degree of discretion must inevitably be exercised. That should be properly exercised by a Secretary of State answerable to the House; he would have to answer for his decision. That is the best way to handle such matters.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to specify in legislation precisely what should happen in every circumstance, he will live in a very strange society where no discretion can ever be exercised on matters where it is the function of those of us who are charged with exercising responsibility in public life to use our discretion in the public interest. We will try to do so. I do not believe that that is in any way unsatisfactory. I am sorry that I have again given a long answer, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the right answer.
  I return to the basic principles of the amendments. Amendment No. 3 preserves the key principle of unitary government where elected regional assemblies are established. It extends the principle of choice that underpins the Bill by giving those in two-tier areas a direct say in the shape of the unitary authorities that will be introduced. Moreover, by requiring a vote in each county area, it will ensure that only those in the affected two-tier areas will get to vote in a referendum on the options for unitary authorities. The form of unitary government will therefore not be dictated by those in the region who are unaffected by local government reorganisation.
  I know that one of the principal criticisms of the original proposals was that in regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, where the overwhelming majority of the population—almost 90 per cent.—live in existing unitary areas, those people living in two-tier local government areas could have their local government changed without having any say whatever. It was an entirely valid concern and the new arrangement is our response to it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I appreciate that the Government yielded to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee in another place for precisely the reasons that the Minister has just advanced—because it removes from the Bill the offensive feature that people in areas unaffected would
  320
  decide the future local government structure, while those in the areas affected would not have any choice between the different possibilities for that structure.
  Mr. Raynsford: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman and we think that the Bill is much improved as a result of the amendment. The other amendments are consequential upon it.
  Amendment No. 3 requires that if there is a referendum in a region about whether to establish an elected assembly, there must also be a referendum in each county area on the Government's options for unitary local government. The county area will generally be the existing area of a county council, which of course has both district councils and a county council. However, if the local government options span county council boundaries, the county areas affected will be combined into a single county area. Voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the boundaries used for the county of Durham be the existing county council boundaries or the previous county council boundaries, which included, for example, Darlington, which was removed as a unitary authority?
  Mr. Raynsford: The boundaries will include the existing county council area, excluding those parts that are now in separate unitary authorities, as part of our principle that only those people who are affected should determine the future structure of local government. Those people in Darlington are already in a unitary authority; they are not in a two-tier authority. There would therefore be no change to the local government arrangements affecting them, so they are excluded.
  The one caveat that I would add is that if—I am not suggesting that this would happen—there were to be a decision by the Secretary of State that the north-east should be an area that should proceed to a referendum, and if the boundary committee recommended that one of the options should involve crossing the Northumberland and Durham boundaries, there could be a wider county, which would cover both Northumberland and Durham. I do not raise that matter to alarm my hon. Friend. I mention it only because that is implicit in the proposals. There are other parts of the country where I suspect that such an outcome might be more likely, so he should be aware that that is a possibility. [Interruption.] I have clearly been unwise in raising that spectre, so I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jones: May I caution my right hon. Friend, and not just in terms of going over the border into Northumberland? Some people will argue that Darlington, for example, should come back into the traditional county of Durham, as it was until a few years ago, but my right hon. Friend should resist such a temptation because that would simply unpick local government in County Durham.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

  321
  I should add one caveat. We have also taken the view that, although we do not intend existing unitary authorities to be otherwise affected, in some circumstances it might be appropriate, as part of local government reorganisation, to suggest that a part of an existing two-tier area might become part of an existing unitary authority. We have not ruled that out. That would not mean unravelling the existing unitaries, but it might involve them having additional areas attached to them. That option is there and we think it sensible.
  Mr. Hammond: I was about to ask the Minister about that issue, which we shall come to later, but in those circumstances, by his own logic, should not the voters in the unitary area that is about to have attached to it part of a two-tier area also have an opportunity to vote on that proposal, because it will affect them? The nature of their local authority will change.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is some effect, but it is not the same as the consequence of a change from an existing two-tier to a unitary structure of local government. The effect is much more peripheral. The fear and the concern was that the future of local government in two-tier areas might be unduly influenced by the votes of people not in two-tier local government. On balance, we felt it right that the vote should be restricted to people within existing two-tier areas.
  Were it suggested, for example, that parts of North Yorkshire might be annexed to existing unitaries in west Yorkshire, if the vote was to be extended to the people of those big metropolitan authorities in west Yorkshire, an overwhelming vote could be accorded to those people. We simply did not feel that that was right. It was not in keeping with the spirit of what we sought to do. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is some, largely peripheral impact, but it will not change the structure of local government and we felt it right to keep to the principle that it is the people within the two-tier areas who should have the vote in such referendums.
  Mr. Stringer: I might surprise my right hon. Friend when I say that I welcome this group of amendments, which removes one of the worst aspects of the Bill, but until he started his explanation I had not really understood that the amendments would allow for the possibility of an amalgamation between Lancashire and Cheshire. Is that right? Can my right hon. Friend help me on that?
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not envisaged that there should be an amalgamation between existing counties, but let me give the example that has already been suggested by one of the county councils in the north-west region. If it was proposed as part of the structure for unitary local government in Cumbria and Lancashire that a single unitary should be created in the Morecambe Bay area, which crossed the boundaries between Lancashire and Cumbria, the second referendum, in which people would be asked to vote on their preferred option for unitary local government in
  322
  their area, would have to embrace the voters in both Cumbria and Lancashire, because one of the options crossed the border. That would be the one area where the two would come together. Usually, our objective would be that the second vote would be on a county basis within each individual county, but where a boundary committee proposal crossed county boundaries there would be a need for a mechanism to allow people in the affected areas to vote, and the only way that we could see that operating would be for the two counties to vote together. Only in that sense would they be brought together. There would be no question of a reorganisation of the two counties into a single county. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  The options put to voters in the referendum will be based on recommendations by the boundary committee. We are quite clear that those must be independent recommendations from the independent boundary committee. It will be required to produce at least two different unitary options. There may be more. In some cases it might be sensible to have more than two options, but there must in all cases be at least two.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has just emphasised the importance of the recommendations of the boundary committee being independent. Will he confirm that before those recommendations are put to the referendum the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to reject any of the boundary committee's recommendations or direct it to make further recommendations to him? That is not most people's definition of fully independent recommendations.
  Mr. Raynsford: I would say that it is, and it is entirely consistent with the existing framework of the relationship of the boundary committee with the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State has the responsibility of implementing proposals. If the Secretary of State does not believe that one of the options is workable in practice, it would be curious if he had no option to request the boundary committee to review the matter. The Secretary of State has that option, but it is the boundary committee that ultimately decides. The Secretary of State cannot tell the boundary committee what option to come up with; he can only say that, in a particular instance, he feels, for the reasons spelt out, that the proposal is simply not workable and should be reconsidered. If the Secretary of State were to do that he would have to have sound grounds indeed, because it would be public knowledge and it would be open to challenge. Clearly, it is not something that would be undertaken lightly. However, there must be that safeguard because it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to implement the arrangements, and if there are genuine concerns that in the course of its considerations the boundary committee had not necessarily considered all the factors, there must be an option to refer it back to the committee. It will then reconsider the matter and make proposals, which will be put to people in a referendum.
  Mr. Beith: May I counsel the Minister against contemplating using the power to reject radical approaches by the boundary committee on the basis of traditionalist conceptions in Whitehall about the appropriate size for a local authority? Such conceptions

  323
  may not take account of the fact that local authorities now contract out much more of their work rather than provide all their services directly. For example, if the committee makes the radical recommendation that unitary authorities can be relatively small, will he not simply reject the proposal out of hand because it does not fit the traditional philosophies of his Department?
  Mr. Raynsford: I can give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the assurance for which he is looking. We have no preconception about the potential outcome. We have been very clear about not putting such criteria into the guidance about size, which we have already consulted on and which we intend to issue to the boundary committee. There is a strong focus on the need for local government to be effective. Clearly, the boundary committee will need to take into account factors relating to size when considering that need. There is no preconception one way or another and certainly not against a radical solution, but there is a practical concern: as the Secretary of State has to implement the recommendations, we must be able to query a proposal that does not seem satisfactory or implementable.
  Mr. Edward Davey: For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I should like to clarify that point. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance given to the boundary committee does not specify the minimum size for a unitary authority? As he will recall, we probed him about that and were keen to ensure that that was the case.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give that assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not included a size threshold. We believe that it is for the boundary committee to determine the most effective form of local government, and that is what it should recommend.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister has raised the possibility of a multiplicity of different options. Can he confirm that in all such referendums, irrespective of the number of options put to voters, the status quo in each and every case would always be one of them?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, because the status quo would involve the retention of two tiers of local government as well as a regional tier. That would work against the policy objective—I thought that the Opposition broadly supported it—of avoiding a proliferation of tiers of government. Clearly, we could not proceed on that basis. There must be a move to unitary local government, but it will be for the boundary committee to take a view about the best options for wholly unitary local government. It will then be for the people to express their choice and preferred option in a referendum. As I made clear, there must always be two options, but there may be more. I can envisage circumstances in which the boundary committee might feel that there are more than two options. I would not want a proliferation, which might become confusing, but it would be wrong arbitrarily to restrict the number if there is, for example, a strong case for considering three separate options.
  Under subsection (6) of the new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 3, the local government referendum must be held on the same day as the regional
  324
  referendum. Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 amend clause 2, which provides the questions that should be asked in the regional and now local referendums and the preambles that should precede those questions on the ballot papers. We have consulted the Electoral Commission, which published on 16 April its views about the intelligibility of the proposed questions and preambles. The amendments reflect its comments and, in addition, provide for a situation in which the questions appear on separate ballot papers.
  To take up the example of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), such a situation could arise if there were four or five separate options. Clearly, it would not be possible to include all those options on a single ballot paper. In such circumstances, more than one ballot paper would be needed, which is the reason why we have changed the Electoral Commission's specific recommendation, which was based on the premise that the options would always be set out on a single ballot paper. We have discussed the matter with the Electoral Commission and it understands the reason for our having the option, which is intended only for circumstances in which it is not possible for all the material to be contained on a single ballot paper, as would normally be our intention.
  Mr. Hammond: The question is a practical one, and we talked about it at some length in Committee in discussing the way in which the primary question would be expressed. Has the Minister considered how it will be possible to express in words and in clear and unambiguous terms something that would be better presented in a map? Does he envisage that maps might be included in the ballot papers?
  Mr. Raynsford: We think that it would be difficult for maps to be included in ballot papers. It would certainly be difficult for a single ballot paper to feature maps representing a number of different options, but we think that it will be necessary to make available additional information, which will probably use maps to show the possible outcomes. Maps will not be included in the ballot paper, but they will almost certainly appear in the form of additional information. The hon. Gentleman will know from our debates in Committee that we intend that additional information should be produced on an entirely factual and neutral basis and that it should set out the different options.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very worried about the Minister. One person's arbitrariness is another's discretion, and I am anxious about the possibility—I put it no more strongly than that—of unwarranted ministerial tinkering. Can he confirm that, if there are four options on the ballot paper, for example, the option that commands the highest support will hold sway? Or is he going to argue on the basis of turnout and modest differences between the numbers of people expressing support for a particular preference that he, in his infinite wisdom, should be the arbiter of which prevails?
  Mr. Raynsford: I counsel the hon. Gentleman not to pursue that argument too hard, because I fear that if he

  325
  does so, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats a strong argument in favour of a proportional system of voting. In that situation, he might not like the outcome.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I put it to the hon. Member for Buckingham that the option that commands the highest support among the electorate is the one that we would normally intend to—
  Mr. BercowNormally?
  Mr. Raynsford: I used the word "normally" because, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, I said previously that if there were a derisorily low level of support, the options were very close to one another, there was very little in it and the turnout was low, we might feel that that was not a sound basis on which to proceed. I have made that point already. Even if he is worried about me, he will know that I usually choose my words very carefully, which is why I used the word "normally". There is nothing sinister for him to read into that word.
  Mr. Bercow: Of course, we all understand the dangers of allowing the Liberals to indulge their pettifogging enthusiasms for proportional representation, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the position would be in the unlikely event of a tie between two options or even, conceivably, four? Would the ballot be re-run or would he, in his infinite wisdom, decide which option should prevail?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman refers to a hypothetical situation. It is extremely unlikely that there would be an absolute tie, but as I told him, if the vote was very close and the participation was not necessarily regarded as a sound basis for a decision, there might well be a case for a further ballot. I can say no more than that, because these are hypothetical situations, but that would be my view as to the most likely outcome in such circumstances.
  Mr. Swire: Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), can the Minister envisage a vote whereby he is satisfied as to the level of participation by those answering the main question about whether they want to have a regional assembly, but dissatisfied with regard to the secondary question about the reorganisation of local government? There may be an enormous number of spoilt ballot papers and people might not understand the choices. What will happen if he is satisfied that there is overall local demand for a regional assembly, but not satisfied by the level of participation with regard to the second issue?
  Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear answer to that. I can certainly envisage that situation arising, because we would be dealing with two separate electorates. The electorate for the regional decision will cover all areas, including those that are already unitary. There could be a derisorily small vote in the local
  326
  government section of the referendum, but a very satisfactory vote in the regional one. In that situation, I think that we would take the view—I cannot say so absolutely because I cannot bind successors, but it would certainly be my presumption—that there should be an opportunity for a further ballot in the local government area affected, because we would not wish to proceed on the basis of an outcome that had a derisory level of participation. That is one of the reasons why there has to be scope for a separate second election, rather than one that happens on the same day, as in the case of the regional one.
  2 pm
  The situation could occur, but I rather hope that it would not, and my judgment is that it will not. I would expect people to be just as interested in how their local authorities operate as in the principle of regional government, so there would be good turnout in both cases. However, I can envisage the possibility, and provision has to be made for it.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry: I provoked him earlier and have been very slow in coming back to him.
  Mr. Davey: I thank the Minister for saying that in the event of a derisory vote in the local government referendum it would be re-run. That is the appropriate response, no doubt with some reference to the boundary committee for England.
  I suggest that in a situation where the boundary committee put forward more than two options in a local government referendum there should be a preferential—not a proportional—voting system, because that would help the Minister to decide on the way forward. As he knows, such referendums are not binding, but they are supposed to tell him what the feelings of local people are. A preferential voting system where there are more than two options would inform the Minister as to the most preferred option. That would be a sensible way forward. Has the Minister thought of putting such a proposal in the final guidance to the boundary committee?
  Mr. Raynsford: There is some risk that we are getting into ever more complex hypothetical situations that hopefully will not arise. The principle that I want to focus on is that there must be a second vote and that it must allow a good opportunity for people living in areas with two separate tiers of local government to express their view about what is the best form of unitary local government. That should determine the outcome, subject to the caveats that I expressed. I hope that those will not be necessary in any circumstances, because the outcome is clear, but I can envisage circumstances in which it might not be. In such cases, our objective would be to act in a way that reflected the views expressed by people in two-tier areas and gave effect to the outcome that appears to command the greatest support.
  I do not want to get into too much speculation about what might happen in extremely unlikely hypothetical situations. The hon. Member for Buckingham

  327
  delightfully conjured up the possibility of four separate options producing a dead heat. I sincerely hope that we never get into that situation.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is being very patient with hon. Members like me who did not serve on the Committee by rehearsing matters that he will have already covered on innumerable occasions. I listened with great interest to what he said about the possibility, which he considers likely in some circumstances, that turnout is so low in a particular area that a clear decision in respect of local government reorganisation is not made. Can he explain what would then happen as regards the decision to move ahead with regional government, given that 90 per cent. of people in the region that he mentioned might have supported it? Would the delay in local government determination in one small part of the region hold up the movement to regional government for the rest of its people?
  Mr. Raynsford: I said that I could envisage the situation arising because there would be two separate electorates. I went on to say, however, that I hoped that it would not, because people would have as much interest in the future of local government in their region as in the future of regional government. My expectation is that there would not be a derisorily low vote in one ballot and a satisfactory one in the other. So yes, I did concede that it was a possibility, and that in that situation it might not be possible to proceed with confidence on the basis of the view expressed in the vote on the preferred option for local government reorganisation. However, I return to first principles: we have always said that the introduction of regional government must be accompanied by a move towards a wholly unitary structure of local government, so the issues must be taken together. It would not be possible to proceed to introduce an elected regional assembly without introducing unitary local government at the same time, so the two would have to run in parallel. There would have to be a decision on the local government issue before elected regional assemblies could be introduced.
  Mr. Davey: I think that we need to press the Minister on this point. There would be plenty of time to run the second ballot on the local government reorganisation question while preparations for setting up the regional assembly went ahead pending the vote on the assembly. Surely we would not want there to be any delay while the second ballot took place.
  Mr. Raynsford: I sincerely hope that that does not have to happen. We want a sensible way forward whereby people can express their view, first, on the merits of having an elected regional assembly and, secondly, on the preferred option for unitary local government in their area. However, we do envisage the possibility of circumstances in which there is not a clear outcome from either ballot, so the Secretary of State has to have the necessary degree of discretion to cope with those situations. That is what we have put into the Bill. It seeks to secure the outcome that gains the support of the majority of people voting in the regional referendum and the local government reorganisation referendum.
  We cannot absolutely guarantee, however, that what secures the largest number of votes will be the outcome, because in some circumstances the level of voting may
  328
  be derisorily small and it would not be safe to proceed on that basis. In that situation, there may be a case for seeking a further referendum giving people the opportunity to vote again, or the Secretary of State might decide that the introduction of elected regional assemblies should not proceed. Those are matters for discretion, as I have made clear throughout our deliberations in Committee and this afternoon. I hope that the situation will not arise other than in extreme and exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. Beith: I suggest to the Minister that what should happen in those circumstances is that if it has become clear, perhaps owing to a boycott or a minimal vote on the local government ballot, that the boundary committee has not come up with a satisfactory form of unitary government, yet the region has voted for an assembly, there is sufficient time—since the Bill to establish the powers will not have been enacted at that stage—to go back to the boundary committee to say, "Please come up with some alternative, more widely-supported proposal", which proposal can then be put to a vote. All that could be achieved before the key dates for the setting up of the regional assembly, and it need not delay its creation.
  Mr. Raynsford: Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted does not contain the provisions that would enable us to go back to the boundary committee in that situation, so it is not possible to envisage doing so. I can understand the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but the Bill does not permit it. There would have to be a re-run of the ballots both for the elected regional assembly and for the local government element, and the whole process would have to be reopened. We simply do not have the power to go back to the boundary committee and ask it to make alternative proposals. We would therefore have to start the whole process again by inviting the boundary committee to review local government boundaries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that while his proposal might be desirable in some cases, it is not a sensible or satisfactory way forward.
  Joyce Quin: I, too, am worried about delay and somewhat concerned about what my right hon. Friend has just said. Will he give a sympathetic response in the case of a region showing a clear desire to create a regional assembly and ensure that it is not thwarted by what could be perceived as a minor problem of local government reorganisation?
  Mr. Raynsford: That is exactly our intention. We do not wish a minor hiccup to frustrate the whole process. Perhaps I did not express well to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the undesirable consequences of having to re-run the process because of a minor hiccup in the local government element.
  The more we look into the matter and the more we provide for different circumstances, the easier it is to envisage the extreme possibilities that have been conjured. If we become unduly preoccupied with that, we will lose sight of the main objective, which is to ensure an opportunity for people in the region to express, through a referendum, their view of the best

  329
  form of unitary local government as well as an opportunity for those in the wider region to vote on the principle of an elected regional assembly.
  Mr. Edward Davey: It is important not to give parties who follow our proceedings the wrong impression. In some local government areas, people might boycott the local government referendum to hold up the creation of a regional assembly, thus operating a veto. The Minister would know that a boycott was simply a wrecking tactic. Would he use his discretion to prevent such wrecking campaigns?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already made clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) the Government's intention to make it possible for people to express their views on the best way forward through referendums on the principle of elected regional assemblies and local government reorganisation. We do not intend to give any comfort to people who have a wholly negative view of the process.
  We oppose thresholds partly because they give people a perverse incentive not to vote: not voting might make it impossible to implement a measure that many people support but cannot be attained without the participation of sufficient electors to reach the threshold. We are keen to avoid such a perverse incentive and we have therefore resisted the idea of a threshold. We believe however that there must be some discretion for the Secretary of State to cope with circumstances in which participation is derisorily low—not through wrecking tactics—or in which the outcomes are so finely balanced that it is difficult to proceed with confidence. Such discretion must therefore remain.
  We shall proceed to allow the intentions of the majority of people in the region—whether the whole region or the area affected by local government reorganisation—to determine the outcome.
  Amendment No. 5 provides two versions of the preamble for the local government referendum, depending on whether there is a single ballot paper or two ballot papers. The Electoral Commission made it clear that its comments were based on the assumption that there would be a single ballot paper, and the Government would aim for that in most circumstances. However, we must also provide for the possibility of having to hold a further local referendum on its own if the result is overturned in the courts. We might also need separate ballot papers if the local government options are numerous—for example, when county areas are combined because one option crosses a boundary or when the options are especially complex. In the latter case, a single ballot paper with adequate provision for partially sighted people might be unwieldy and it would therefore be better to have two ballot papers.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister guide me to the relevant provision for a stand-alone local referendum in the circumstances that he outlined? I believed that the measure provided only for simultaneous local and regional referendums.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: That is the case but if, for example, a decision in the courts prevented the Secretary of State from proceeding on the basis of a local government ballot, it would be impossible to go further without a second, stand-alone ballot on preferences for forms of unitary local government. If an outcome were challenged because of an allegation of malpractice and the court set aside the unitary local government element, the Secretary of State would have to hold a second ballot. That is the only possible way forward.
  Mr. Hammond: I agree with the logic, but will the Secretary of State have such a statutory power? I cannot find it.
  Mr. Raynsford: In the case that I outlined, the Secretary of State would act on the outcome of a court decision that set aside the original referendum result. I am advised that holding a second referendum would constitute acting properly. I am further advised that amendment No. 11 to clause 5 provides for that.
  Electoral Commission advice recognises that if a local government question is on a separate ballot paper, further explanation will be needed in the preamble. Amendment No. 5 therefore includes two options for the statement that precedes the local government question. Additional text will be needed for the local referendum question once we know the precise options for change that are to be put to voters. Proposed new subsection (2D) of clause 2 provides that the detailed text will given in an order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The order must also set out the explanatory material that relates to the local government options and will be made available to voters when they vote, either with their ballot papers or at the polling station. As I said earlier, the explanatory material may include maps or other information that will make it easier for people to understand the proposals.
  Amendment No. 5 also provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the text of the options and the explanatory material before he lays the order for the referendum. He must lay a report before Parliament that sets out the commission's views when he presents the order.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would amend clause 8 to ensure that the Electoral Commission could provide information to voters about the arguments on the local government options. As we have made clear, the Government also intend to prepare and distribute a summary of their proposals for local government and elected assemblies before any referendums. We envisage that it will be distributed to every household in the relevant region.
  Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to clause 3 set out the franchise for the local referendums. Those who are entitled to vote in local government elections in the relevant county area will be able to vote on the second question. Those who live in existing unitary areas will not be able to vote on the local government options. We have already covered that.
  Amendment No. 11 to clause 5 provides that, in the case of a successful legal challenge to the result of a local government referendum, the Secretary of State could

  331
  order a repeat local government referendum. However, a repeat regional referendum would not have to be held at the same time. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). For example, it is possible to envisage a position in which the local government referendum in one county area is successfully challenged but the overall result of the regional referendum is not in doubt. However, the amendment would not allow a repeat regional referendum without local government referendums at the same time. We believe that any doubt about the outcome of one referendum for the whole region must apply to the results of the local government referendums in parts of the region.
  Mr. Don Foster: I apologise for intervening on the Minister again. Perhaps I am being extremely stupid, but he has made it very clear that amendment No. 11 allows for the possibility, if a local government decision is set aside by the courts, of a second, independent vote on that issue without it affecting the regional government decision. Will the Minister confirm that he must surely have been wrong when he said earlier that if there had to be a second vote on a local government issue for any other reason, there would have to be a second referendum across the whole region? Surely that is not right, because if it were, he would have been incorrect to tell the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West a few moments ago that the Government were going to ensure that the few would not hold up the views of the majority.
  Mr. Raynsford: This illustrates the complexity of trying to bring together the two separate elements. Let me try to set out all the circumstances. In an ideal world, one would expect the results of both referendums to be clear and without problems. In such cases, things would proceed perfectly properly. The outcome of the regional referendum will determine whether there is to be an elected regional assembly and whether there is to be local government reorganisation. The outcome of the second referendum on the unitary level government will determine the outcome for the local government areas affected.
  If there were doubt as to the validity of the regional referendum, the whole exercise would have to be replayed. There could be no question of the local government reorganisation element standing; in such circumstances, the whole thing should be replayed. If there were doubt about one of the local government elements—there could well be two, three or four such elements, depending on the number of counties in the area affected—it is possible that there might have to be a re-run, for the reasons that I have outlined, if the courts were to challenge the outcome of one of those local elections. In such a situation, it would be possible to re-run the outcome of that local element without setting aside either the regional result or the results of the local referendums in the other county areas. I hope that that makes it clear for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foster: The Minister has described every set of circumstances other than the one about which I specifically asked him. The circumstances to which I am referring are those in which doubts might be cast about the validity of a local government decision in a
  332
  particular local government area because, for example, of extremely low turnout. The Minister has said that it might be necessary in such circumstances for that local decision to be re-run, and it is right and proper that that should happen. My question is a simple one. In those circumstances, would there have to be a re-run of the regional government ballot as well? The Minister said earlier that that was the case, yet he told the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West that a small number of people in such a local government area would not be able to thwart the wishes of the majority.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is broadly the case, but if there were an effective legal action which halted—
  Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the Secretary of State had no ability to proceed because the outcome had been challenged, the provision in amendment No. 11 states that he may
  "cause a further referendum to be held"
  in the county area affected—just in that county area, not in the wider one. I am sorry that I am finding it hard to follow the argument the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I shall give him a further opportunity to explain it.
  Mr. Foster: I shall try one last time, then I promise that I shall cease. The Minister is still evading the question. He keeps going back to the legal set-aside that is, as he rightly says, covered by amendment No. 11. Earlier in our deliberations, however, he said that in certain circumstances it would be possible for the Secretary of State to use his discretion, not because of a legal challenge, not to go ahead with a decision taken at local level—for example, because of low turnout. My question is a simple one. In such circumstances, if the Secretary of State were to use his discretion to set aside a local government vote and there had to be a re-run, would there have to be a regional ballot for regional government across the whole region?
  Mr. Raynsford: In a situation in which the Secretary of State decided that the ballot was unsatisfactory as a basis to proceed, it would be necessary for the whole process to be re-run. If, however, the outcome in one—or more than one—individual county area of the local government element were challenged at law and overturned, it would be possible to re-run those local components in the referendum as stand-alone elements. That is why there is provision for us to have a re-run of the local component in the referendum without having the whole exercise repeated. But those are the only circumstances in which we would envisage a re-run of those local components.
  Mr. Hammond: I would like to make sure that I have understood this. Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State has no power, other than in a situation of legal challenge, to order a re-run of the local ballot only?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am advised that there are two options for the Secretary of State. First, he may use his discretion to proceed with establishing an elected

  333
  regional assembly and implementing the local government change, or to re-run both referendums. That applies in a situation in which the Secretary of State, using his discretion, determines that the outcome of one or other of the elements in the referendum is unsatisfactory. If the Secretary of State were unable to proceed because an element had been challenged at law, there would be scope to re-run the local element of the referendum without requiring the regional one to be repeated. I hope that we have now established the position.
  Amendment No. 12 to clause 6 enables the regional referendum poll to be combined with the polls for local government referendums. These two referendums must be held on the same day, so it makes sense to enable the polls to be combined to reduce bureaucracy. Under the amended clause 6, it would also still be possible to combine these polls with other polls for local or general elections, or for local mayoral referendums.
  Amendments Nos. 13, 19 and 23 are tidying-up amendments arising out of the introduction of the second referendum question. Rather than have separate requirements dotted throughout the Bill, the amendments bring together in one place the requirements to consult the Electoral Commission before making orders: in clause 11, which deals with supplementary provisions. Amendments Nos. 14, 17, 18, 34 and 35 are all consequential amendments to reflect that there will now be local referendums as well as regional referendums. I hope that we have now covered all the rather complex issues implicit in the amendments under consideration, and I urge the House to support them.
  Mr. Hammond: I congratulate the Minister on thwarting my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in his bet that he would pass the one-hour milestone in that opening speech. We have covered some particularly interesting and detailed points that Members genuinely wanted to explore. I should like to analyse what this large group of amendments does and does not do, and then look at the genesis of the rather cynical pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Government that lies behind them.
  When it left the Commons, the Bill required the boundary committee to have recommended a unitary reorganisation of local government for a region—that is, one single unitary reorganisation pattern for the region—prior to any referendum on an elected regional assembly taking place. As the Minister clearly said, this group of amendments introduces a requirement for two or more solutions for such reorganisation to be put forward, and a provision that electors in two-tier areas only would express a view as between them in a simultaneous referendum.
  I choose my words carefully, because the electors will not be choosing the local government system that they want to live under. They will express a view on two or more options that have been put to them. That is the nub of it. Most of the amendments would simply extend the scope of other provisions to accommodate the proposed changes. Thus, they are consequential, although I want to return to a specific detailed question in a moment.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman is setting out, quite correctly, what the amendments contain, it might be helpful to make it clear that they would introduce a principle that was not present on any occasion on which the Conservative party reorganised local government, abolished counties or created unitary authorities—namely, the voters in the area concerned would have a vote on which pattern they preferred.
  Mr. Hammond: But they would not have a vote on the possibility of retaining the existing system, although the Liberal Democrats were vehement that that needed to be included when the Bill was considered in this place.
  We have heard the Minister's explanation of the Government's volte-face, which he expressed in terms of giving people a choice. They will have a choice between two alternative forms of compulsory "unitarisation" of their local government, but they will not have the option of saying that they would prefer to retain the existing form of local government.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the previous Government gave local electors no choice at all on the form of local government. Is it now Conservative party policy to be against unitary local government and in favour of the option of retaining two-tier local authorities throughout the UK?
  Mr. Hammond: Clearly, as I have said on a number of occasions, the issue ought to be decided by local electors, but it cannot be, because the Government are explicitly not allowing that choice to be put to them. As Liberal Members know, that point was made strongly from their Benches and supported by us when the Bill was considered in the Commons, so let me explain to the House what has happened here; the real reason for this rather cynical deal.
  The Liberal Democrats, from the outset, have wanted the option of keeping two-tier local government. I assume that that is still their position. Indeed, at the end of the long debate in the other place when these amendments were agreed, Baroness Hamwee expressed that view. The Government, from the outset, have insisted on an all-unitary solution to prevent there being three tiers of government between central Government and the elector in some areas.
  We sympathise with both views. We agree that three tiers are too many, but we also agree that it is wrong to impose unitary local government as a consequence. Our conclusion—the logical conclusion—is that the superfluous tier is not the historic counties or the districts, the tier closest to the electorate, but the proposed regional tier itself.
  The Liberals argued consistently for a three-tier option. The Government, during consideration in the Commons, maintained that a unitary solution is a necessary precondition for elected regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats also recognised something else, perhaps rather perceptively, early on in the proceedings—the reality that the electorate in two-tier areas are unlikely to believe that the consequence of an imposed unitary local government structure is a price worth paying for the dubious privilege of having an

  335
  elected regional assembly with uncertain, but certainly minimal, powers. They recognised the threat to the programme to introduce elected regional assemblies represented by coupling local government reorganisation with compulsory "unitarisation".
  Scandalously, in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to do away with the requirement for the boundary committee to report before a referendum, as they wanted to avoid the electorate knowing the detail of the changes that would be imposed on them and preferred to keep the electorate in ignorance. The Government, to their credit, rejected the idea at that stage and at least retained some of their principles.
  In response to amendment No. 26, the Minister said:
  "Amendment No. 26 from the Liberal Democrats would remove the requirement for a local government review to be carried out by the Boundary Committee before an order causing a referendum was made. Rather, the committee will only have had to be directed to prepare to carry out a review. We believe that any local government review of a region should be carried out before a referendum on elected regional assemblies, so that voters are fully informed of the implications of a yes vote for local government in their region."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 515.]
  That was at least an honourable position, and we and many supporters of elected regional assemblies recognised that it would make it harder to win a referendum on such assemblies as the cost to be imposed on the electorate in terms of all-unitary local government reorganisation would be spelled out in detail to them at the time of the referendum.
  I am sorry to say that, as the Government have seen support for that extra tier of government fade, even in the areas that they regarded as early candidates for referendums, their principles have been put on the block. The Liberal Democrats, who never had any and who saw from the outset the need to conceal from the electors the detailed consequences of a yes vote, as I have shown by reference to amendment No. 26, have done the Government's dirty work for them in the other place. These are not essentially Liberal Democrat amendments, although the principal amendment was tabled by Baroness Hamwee. However, she acknowledged the work that the Government put in on the amendments and the help that they gave.
  There was a coalition effort at trying to salvage something from the regional agenda, as the Government and the Liberal Democrats—both keen exponents of it—recognise that the mood is drifting from them, even in those areas where they felt most secure.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I will deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's more ludicrous points in my speech, but I want to get this on the record, as I am sure that he does not want to mislead the House. Amendment No. 26 was tabled in relation to other amendments, which were not selected at the same time, to facilitate complete decoupling of local government reorganisation from the regional assembly referendum. That is our main position. He is suggesting that we wanted to keep information from the electorate. That is not the case, and he knows it.
  Mr. Hammond: I simply quoted the Minister from Hansard. My understanding is that amendment No. 26 would have put the local government review after the date of a referendum. People will draw their own conclusions from that.
  336
  Liberal Democrats in the other place struck a deal with the Government, and this is what it amounts to. Liberal Democrat peers, working with my noble Friends, could have written into the Bill many important changes that Liberal Democrats argued for in this House, simply because of the arithmetic in the other place. For example, they could have included provisions on separate referendums on whether electors supported local government reform, rather than on simply which of a number of unitary options they preferred, and on reviewing the artificial and often irrelevant boundaries for the proposed regions. All those things were argued for strongly and passionately by Liberal Democrat Members of this House and by Conservative Members.
  However, the Liberal Democrats chose to abandon the opportunity that presented itself in the House of Lords to push such amendments through in alliance with Conservative peers and bring those proposals back to this House for a further airing. They chose to abandon all those long-held objections to the Bill's structure, including that on imposed unitary authorities, in exchange for Government support for this cynical arrangement, which conceals and will conceal from the electorate the true consequences of a yes vote in a regional referendum. [Interruption.] It will conceal those consequences from the electorate. The original Bill proposed a single clear, unambiguous solution for the imposition of unitary local government on a region in the event of a vote for an elected regional assembly in a referendum. Under the new proposals, two, three or four possible solutions could be presented to the electorate to muddy the water, it being unclear which if any of the options would ultimately be imposed.
  Mr. Raynsford: Why is the principle that the honourable Gentleman quoted me as having enunciated in Committee in any way compromised by the fact that the electorate will have a choice? While knowing full well that the outcome will be wholly unitary local government, they will be able to decide on the option that they prefer.
  Mr. Hammond: We discussed that at length in Committee. The Minister knows that people are very concerned about the minutiae of local boundaries, local organisation and local structures; in fact, one of the great strengths of local government is its relevance to people because it is close to them. People will not be able to focus on three or four options as clear consequences of a yes vote in a referendum, as they could have done under the original Commons proposals.
  The Minister may wish to deny this, but I submit that many Members and people outside favouring elected regional assemblies have observed, since the publication of the original Bill, that the linking of local government reorganisation with the establishment of assemblies and of the boundary committee review with the publication of the committee's decision prior to the referendum would make it significantly harder for them to carry the day.
  Mr. Beith: Am I to understand that the Conservatives will vote against the amendment because they do not think electors should be able to choose their unitary authority, or indeed choose not to have a unitary authority, a choice that would fall to them if they had no

  337
  regional assembly? That would at least be consistent with the Conservatives' previous position: when they imposed unitary authorities, the electorate had no vote at all.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself, and wait to find out what I advise my colleagues to do. He has, however, put his finger on the problem. Apart from voting against elected regional assemblies, electors still have no way of expressing their opposition to the abolition of their existing two-tier authorities. Liberals in the Commons argued strongly for such an opportunity. I am disappointed that Liberals in the Lords have abandoned not just that but a number of other important issues—for instance, the need for a review of regional boundaries with the aim of establishing something more like real, effective regions, rather than the totally arbitrary and irrelevant boundaries that the Government are imposing. Not a squeak did we hear from them during consideration in the Lords.
  As every Member of this House knows, the House of Lords gives Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to force the Government to re-examine the issues. That is particularly relevant now, when the Government are extremely sensitive about the time scale and have made it clear that they can afford no delay.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his use of the term "totally arbitrary and irrelevant" to describe Government office boundaries made effective by his party?
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Hammond: They are indeed totally arbitrary and irrelevant to an elected democratic assembly, for which the Government propose to use them. That is not a very good debating point: the Minister has used it before, and I have answered it before.
  For the record, the Government office regions have a long history. They originated in second world war food production planning regions, which were amalgamated in the 1970s and 1980s for economic planning purposes. The last Conservative Government used them as administrative divisions for the regional Government offices, which are administrative bodies and are not democratically elected.
  As I am sure the House agrees, there is no point in my referring to all the amendments. Almost all are paving and consequential amendments surrounding a core principle. Let me ask the Minister one specific, detailed question. Lords amendment no. 11 proposes a new subsection (3G), to which he referred. It accepts a requirement for the Government to present the Electoral Commission's report to each House before an order is made.
  Various amendments were made in the Commons—supported by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—imposing such a requirement on the Government. The Government resisted the requirement for them to publish the commission's report. The commission confirmed to me that it would expect routinely to publish such advice on its website
  338
  and it would therefore become publicly available; I advised the Committee accordingly. The Government, however, have now changed their position and accepted that the Secretary of State should publish the report.
  I have, in fact, two questions for the Minister. First, why have the Government changed their position? Secondly, having changed their position in respect of the commission's report, why have they not been consistent and included a similar provision in each part of the Bill that provides for a report from the commission to the Secretary of State? That is, I think, the effect of the totality of the amendments tabled in Committee.
  The amendments clearly do not offer the option of retaining a two-tier structure. This deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government seals the fate of county councils in all regions that vote for an elected regional assembly. It does not even give local electors control over the form of unitary authority that they have. The Minister has already made it clear that the ultimate discretion will rest with the Secretary of State rather than the ballot box.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense when he says that this will mean the end of county councils. In the county of Durham, for example, the option could be a unitary county council.
  Mr. Hammond: It is conceivable that in some cases the name may survive. In fact, we have already had this discussion. In an earlier debate, I invited the Minister to speculate on whether the Secretary of State might be minded to allow Kent or Essex—both with populations of well over 1.5 million, perhaps approaching 2 million—to become unitary authorities. Although the Minister definitely said that it was a possibility, the consensus is that the Government do not intend the creation of unitary authorities of that size. If they are created, the Government will have scored a massive own goal by moving the lowest tier of local government so far from the people it represents as to make it meaningless to them. The unitary authority of Kent or Essex would have almost the same population as the north-east regional assembly.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so disparaging about the work of Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart in Kent and Lord Hanningfield in Essex. Both are members of his party, and he describes them as being hopelessly remote from the people of their area. Does he accept that I have always made it clear that it is for the independent boundary committee to come forward with recommendations, and that its concern is to decide on the most effective form of unitary local government for the area? The committee will make that judgment, which could involve a unitary county or a different formulation. However, the judgment will be that of the independent boundary committee, based on the criterion of what is the best form of local government.
  Mr. Hammond: I maintain that, in practice, the deal that has been struck means the death of county councils, at least in the great majority of cases. Let me place on record the fact that I have the highest regard for Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart and Lord Hanningfield,

  339
  although I am quite certain that neither would believe that their county councils—given the scale of the budgets that they control and the size of the populations and territory in which they operate—would be the most effective lower tier of local government, closest to the electorate.
  I am glad that the Minister mentioned that the boundary committee would make the recommendation, because that brings me to another point. The Secretary of State has a power—we have come to expect such things—to give the boundary committee directions. So off it goes, doing its independent thing, but with guidance and direction from the Secretary of State. Given that we are now in a different situation, in which the boundary committee will recommend not a single outcome but at least two outcomes, the Minister could help by giving the House an idea of what the Secretary of State's guidance will be.
  Will the Secretary of State actively solicit from the boundary committee a range of outcomes that are significantly different—in other words, various radical approaches to the problem of reorganisation—or will the committee use the procedure that it would have used in arriving at a single conclusion, and simply stop a little short of that single conclusion, once it has whittled the options down to two? The process that the boundary committee will have to embark on will be very different if what he is trying to achieve at the end of it is distinctive alternatives to put before the Secretary of State and then, hopefully, the electorate. To take up the Minister's point about Kent, perhaps the guidance might be that one of the options presented should always be a unitary county. If that is what the Minister has in mind, it would be extremely interesting and useful for the House to he aware of that.
  These amendments muddy the water by conveying the impression that the electorate has a say in, and a way of expressing a view on, the local government question other than simply voting no in the referendum on elected regional assemblies. Of course, the Government's nightmare—it is certainly the Liberal Democrats'—is that those who are opposed to local government reorganisation will vote no to elected regional assemblies not because of their views on them, but because of their views on local government reorganisation. Crucially, as I said in response to the Minister's earlier intervention, this approach avoids a clear, single, well-defined consequence from a yes vote in terms of local government reorganisation.
  The Liberal Democrats' own Front-Bench spokesman in the Lords, Lord Greaves, at least had the decency to resign in protest at this rather squalid deal to conceal matters from the electorate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote Lord Greaves, because what he said is quite significant. He refers to the
  "amendments on the Marshalled List that are part of a package negotiated between members of my party and the Government—there is no secret about that … The crunch is whether people in areas that are to have referendums on regional assemblies…have the democratic option to decide for themselves and not be told by the Minister, 10 Downing Street or anyone else that two-tier local government is not allowed."
  340
  Lord Greaves was speaking after he had resigned from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He said:
  "In Committee, when I spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of my party … Lord Rooker said:
  'If this measure is decoupled, there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away. That is the price to be paid. It is as simple as that.' … I said,
  'We now have threats, bluster and blackmail from the Minister—not rational argument … The Minister's attitude is not acceptable … We are being threatened that if we do what we believe is right, the Government will take their bat and ball home. If it comes to that, do not blame us. The responsibility would clearly rest with the Government. It is arrogance of the highest order.'
  Later I said …:
  'The Liberal Democrats will not be brow-beaten in every instance'",
  presumably implying that they are willing to be browbeaten in some instances. Lord Greaves then said:
  "I repeat those words at some length because I believed then that I was speaking on behalf of my party. After I spoke, I was not given an indication that I had not been speaking on behalf of my party. But I believe that my party has, regrettably, now agreed to be blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten."
  What is more, he knows who is responsible:
  "I do not blame my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what I think is a very sad series of events. I blame Ed Davey"—
  the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—
  "and my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to stand up in public and say that. I believe that in my part of the world, and in other parts of the world, too, Liberal Democrats will believe that they have been let down on this issue by their parliamentary representatives."
  After this triumph in the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats put out a press statement, to which Lord Greaves referred in the Lords.
  "'These concessions prevent the absurd situation whereby voters unaffected by local government reform would effectively be imposing changes on voters elsewhere in the region.'"
  Lord Greaves said of that press release:
  "That is not true. The amendments do not prevent that. All that they do is give those voters a choice. If they believe that unitary government is some form of hell, it gives them a choice of two kinds of hell."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, cc. 20–21.]
  That is the view of the Liberal Democrats' own former spokesman, who either resigned or was sacked as a result of this deal being struck in the Lords.
  This is a cynical manoeuvre by a desperate Government and unprincipled Liberal Democrats, from which label I must of course exclude Lord Greaves. The Liberal Democrat press release proceeded to crow that the amendments meant regional government was now assured. I am not sure about that, but to the extent that it is more likely, it is not more likely because a fundamental objection—the imposition of unitary local government, to which the Liberal Democrats still purport to object—has been removed, but because a smokescreen has been erected to obfuscate the issues and confuse the electorate. The Liberal Democrats, who so aggressively and implausibly stake their claim in this House to be considered a party of opposition, have demonstrated through this shabby affair—if any demonstration were needed—that they are not a party

  341
  of opposition, but fellow travellers of Labour in England, just as they are in a more formal sense in Scotland and in Wales.
  Mr. Don Foster: Since the hon. Gentleman is so keen on stressing the importance of opposition, could he make a clear statement as to whether his party will vote against these proposals?
  Mr. Hammond: I shall come to that right now. We will not be dividing the House on this issue, and the reason is clear for everyone in the House to see: because of the arithmetic. We know that the Government will get their way in this House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): It did not stop you last night.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that, but of course the Government will get their way in this House. However, in the other place there is a real chance to achieve some of the changes that we and the Liberal Democrats sought. There is a real chance to change this Bill and incorporate some of those provisions that we argued for in Committee and on Report.
  Liberal Democrats know that they had a real chance of securing a Government compromise in the other place because of the self-imposed time limits—[Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that the single change that he opted for, in preference to all the other changes that he sought, is a poor choice. The Liberal Democrats have not only acquiesced in the matter, but have actively conspired with the Government to ensure the demise of our counties in any areas where elected regional assemblies are set up.
  3 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I will deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points in my speech. However, he quoted the noble Lord Rooker in the other place, who said:
  "If this measure is decoupled"—
  the hon. Gentleman is right that that is what we sought—
  "there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 2003; Vol. 1905, c. 1515.]
  It was clear that we were not going to win: the Bill and the regional government that we support would have been lost, so we compromised. We won a compromise, which brought us far more than the hon. Gentleman gives us credit for. When he finishes, I will outline what we won in more detail.
  Mr. Hammond: I believe that that is what the honourable Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Greaves described as "threats, bluster and blackmail" from the Minister. Lord Greaves went on to say that, regrettably, his party—the Liberal Democrats—had agreed to be "blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten". That is not the best way to proceed, certainly not in the other place, which is renowned for its gentlemanly—I should say gentle—behaviour.
  342
  Liberal Democrats have always been strong supporters of elected regional assemblies, so by extension Liberal Democrat policy should now be viewed as firmly in favour of the abolition of county councils and our two-tier system of local government. It is even worse than that. The original proposal in the Bill was for the boundary commission to make a single unitary recommendation. That would have created considerable disruption and manoeuvring between different parties and different authorities in the area. We all recognised in Committee that disruption at local government level, which inevitably impacts on services, is to be avoided if possible. Now we are to have multiple options and a question that will not be resolved by the time that the boundary committee reports to the Secretary of State, which it would have been in the Commons version of the Bill.
  All that will have a negative impact on service delivery and will prolong and deepen the disruption at local government level. It will impact on the ability of local authorities to recruit and retain staff in the face of uncertainty about their future status—indeed, their survival—and it will be a distraction from the real job, which gets harder by the day, of trying to deliver decent services to local people. The Government and—it seems—the Liberal Democrats are still driven by dogma and ideology. They are prepared to sacrifice the issues of real concern to the public—service delivery—for their own arcane agenda of constitutional reform. They want to create assemblies that will impose huge costs, but not deliver a single extra teacher or nurse, or put a single extra policeman on our streets. That message will not be lost on local electors as they go to the polls tomorrow.
  Joyce Quin: In an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister, I warmly welcomed the amendments and I should now like to expand on my intervention.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who was for a long time coy about how he intended to react to the amendments and whether he would vote against them. He then declared that because of the parliamentary arithmetic, he would not vote against them, which suggests that from now on the Opposition will call no more votes. That would certainly provide a big change to parliamentary procedures.
  I am glad that the amendment was proposed in the other place and equally glad that the Government agreed to it. Rather than it being some sort of cynical arrangement, as suggested by Conservative Members, I view it as a wholly sensible compromise between the Government's understandable desire not to have too many tiers of government, and their intention to ensure that people living in the areas that will be affected by local government reorganisation are not dictated to and outvoted by people already living in the unitary areas within regions, which tend to be the more populous districts.
  As a Tynesider and a Member of Parliament who represents parts of both Tyneside and Wearside, I feel deeply uncomfortable at the thought of voting to ensure a particular local government outcome in the county areas of Northumberland and Durham in my region. I am glad that, as a result of the compromise, I will no longer be put in that position and I can now happily vote

  343
  for regional government without feeling that I am compromising the democratic process—my earlier worry—in any way.
  I have never been, and am still not, keen on the link between regional government and local government reorganisation, because I believe that they are separate issues, which should be dealt with separately on their own merits. Some of the complexities that have arisen—they have already been raised in the debate—somewhat reinforce my viewpoint, but I nevertheless share the Government's perspective on the advantages of unitary local government and their desire to give people in affected areas a degree of choice. Decrying that degree of choice comes strange from Conservative Members, who certainly gave the voters in Tyne and Wear no choice at all about the form of unitary government that they would have when the Tyne and Wear county council was abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) also blew the gaff effectively on the Opposition's claim that they were defending county councils because it is clear that the boundary commissions could recommend the existing county area as the unitary authority of the future. At that point, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seemed less interested in Durham than in Kent, but I remind him that they are both county council areas.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sudden conversion of the Conservative party to the sacrosanctity of county councils is misplaced? The Local Government Act 1972 reduced the number of county councils from 58 to 47, and every major change in county boundaries has taken place under a Conservative Government.
  Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. I intended to make the point strongly that the Conservatives' reputation as the wreckers of historic counties will remain firmly intact, even after today's proceedings. The major changes to historic counties—and their destruction—were certainly carried out by the Conservatives' local government reforms of the 1970s. Those were added to by subsequent changes granting unitary status in other historic counties such as Berkshire, Durham and elsewhere. Any claim of the Conservatives to be the defenders of historic counties is totally unconvincing.
  The amendments would enormously improve the Bill. They would increase the chances of favourable results in referendums on regional government, but in the end, people have a choice about whether they favour regional government. Conservative Members often suggest that people will be dragooned or compelled to adopt regional government, which is far from the case. People will be able to choose whether to move towards regional government, and I greatly welcome the fact that they will have that choice rather than have it imposed on them.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Lady will recognise that in several regions, the majority of the electorate already live in unitary authority areas so they will not suffer from the reorganisation of local government, which is the subject of our concern this afternoon.
  Joyce Quin: I recognise that. As I said earlier, I have never run away from the fact that I would prefer
  344
  regional and local government to be fully decoupled. Even so, it is clear to me that what the amendment offers is a huge improvement on what existed previously. It would give people a degree of choice that they have always been denied in previous local government reforms, and leave them in the happy position that they would not be overruled by people living in the areas already under unitary systems.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady is making a stoical defence of the Government's position to the best of her ability. However, a certain neurosis seems to underlie the Government's stance. I invite the right hon. Lady to reflect on the salience of her reference to the "degree of choice" available to people. Does she not concede that it is rather peculiar to celebrate the merits of choice, and to offer people a series of options, but then for the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to be unable to guarantee from the Dispatch Box that the preferred option will always be honoured in practice? The Minister thinks that his arbitrary discretion should hold sway over the local will, in many cases. Does not the right hon. Lady think that that is contradictory?
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman earlier tempted my right hon. Friend the Minister down various improbable hypothetical paths. My right hon. Friend was right to resist that teasing, and to say very firmly that he would not want to thwart the will of the majority of people in a region when it came to expressing a choice about establishing a regional assembly. He also said that he would not want to influence the choice of people in areas affected by local government reorganisation as to what form that reorganisation should take.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his intervention also said that I was making a stoical defence of the Government's proposals, but I want to make it clear that I am making an enthusiastic defence of them. As long ago as last July, I put forward the idea of a compromise in a newspaper article, and I also spoke firmly in favour of a compromise in this House on 18 December, when it was not Government policy. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least admit that I have advocated this line for some considerable time. The compromise is a constructive move towards unitary government, which I and the majority of hon. Members strongly support. At the same time, it avoids what would be an uncomfortable option for those of us in existing urban and unitary areas—that is, overriding the wishes of people in two-tier areas.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady knows that I always try to be fair in debate. I would not want to impugn her integrity, or to misrepresent what appears to be a consistent position—with which, as it happens, I disagree. I entirely accept that the right hon. Lady is consistent, although she has the rather dubious distinction of being consistently wrong. Her position contrasts somewhat with that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who is usually wrong, and in this case is inconsistent. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge

  345
  (Mr. Hammond) has very usefully explained how Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place are now united in fraternal detestation of each others' guts.
  Joyce Quin: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will deal with those matters when he rises to speak. I am glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham recognises the consistency of my argument, even though he does not agree with it. However, in all fairness, I must say that Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters of devolution in the north-east of England have felt that the proposal was a sensible way forward, and indeed they advocated it at an early stage. The hon. Gentleman can impugn motives, or otherwise, as he chooses, but there is a long history to the idea under discussion, and that should be recognised in this debate.
  In conclusion, I once again welcome the amendments. They greatly improve the Bill. They take a lot of the sting out of the complications arising from linking regional and local government, and provide a very sensible way forward.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). She has argued in favour of amendments similar to those passed in the Lords, especially the one moved by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. The support given by people such as the right hon. Lady was vital in persuading the Government to accept the amendments. I therefore pay tribute to the contribution made by the right hon. Lady and other Labour Members to this success.
  The amendments significantly improve the Bill. I shall say a little more about the compromise involved in a second, but the issue has been progressed in a way that people who will be asked to vote in the referendums will see as sensible and valuable.
  We were faced with a Government who were not going to accept the principled position of the Liberal Democrats. We wanted to decouple local government reorganisation from the referendum on elected regional assemblies. That would still be my preference, but compromise is necessary in politics. Instead of negotiating with the Government on the solution that has been proposed, we had two other options. We could have held out for total decoupling and said that we would not agree with anything if the Government did not accept non-unitary government in the areas that opt for regional assemblies. If we had done that, the Bill would have been lost and regional government would have died.
  What would have happened? We would have been left with the quangos that already exist in the regions, many of which were set up by the previous Conservative Government and have no democratic accountability. We believe in regional government because we believe in regional democracy, and we want it to be accountable to people in the regions. We did not want to lose the Bill, because we would have lost the chance for regional democracy.
  346
  The other alternative is that the Government could have said that they want the Bill and that, with no compromise forthcoming, they would push it through using the Parliament Acts. That would have meant that no improvements to the Bill would have been possible; neither of those alternatives was very inviting. We believed that getting involved in constructive discussions with the Government was the sensible way forward. The Government proposal was not our preferred option, but it was as near as we could possibly get to it.
  3.15 pm
  Mr. Hammond: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he is being slightly disingenuous in citing the possibility that the Government might use the Parliament Acts. He knows that the Government, almost uniquely with this Bill, cannot afford any time slippage. They have set out their agenda for the next general election and they want a referendum to be held next year. They simply would not be able to rely on use of the Parliament Acts.
  Mr. Davey: The Government could have taken that decision, or they could have decided to withdraw the Bill, as Lord Rooker said. We must remember that No. 10 did not want this Bill at all. The Deputy Prime Minister had to negotiate very hard with No. 10 to get the Bill in the first place. The Deputy Prime Minister had to compromise with No. 10, for which the bottom line was unitary government. Faced with that reality, Liberal Democrats decided—politics being the art of the possible—to compromise, like the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend may have miscounted, as he said that three options existed. I draw his attention to a fourth option—we could speak out strenuously against something and then, as the Conservatives are doing, not even bother to vote against it.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. He exposes the nonsense that is the Conservative position, and I hope to go further in that respect.
  It should come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats have negotiated with the Government on constitutional reform issues. We were part of a Cabinet Committee that sat for several years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a member of that Committee, which dealt with constitutional reform in respect of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, freedom of information and human rights. Liberal Democrats were involved in negotiations on all those major constitutional reforms. This measure is part of that tradition.
  Such compromises have not prevented the Liberal Democrats from opposing the Government on many issues; for example, Iraq, or tuition and top-up fees. In no way do we agree with every part of the Government's agenda, but, when we do, we try to work with them to reach a compromise. That is grown-up politics.

  347
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) quoted my noble Friend, Lord Greaves, but, interestingly, he did not cite his noble Friend Lord Waddington, who said:
  "My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment"—
  the noble Baroness was the Liberal Democrat, Lady Hamwee—
  "which appears to be an important step forward, allowing people the opportunity to say what form of unitary local government they want in their areas."
  Lord Waddington seemed to think that was a good idea. Indeed, he helpfully went further when he said:
  "But, assuming that the Government will not resile from their determination to use their voting power to ensure that the price of having a referendum is to have unitary local government, does not my noble friend agree with me that, if we are eventually left in that position, it is better that local people should have the opportunity to choose what form of unitary government they should have …?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 17–19.]
  Lord Waddington clearly supported the compromise.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I shall give way in a moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to quote from Lord Waddington's remarks later in that debate when, having realised that he should not be engaging his brain but donning his party colours, he went back on his earlier statements. Does the hon. Gentleman still want to intervene?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman generally runs a commendable campaign against selective quotation. However, later in the same debate, Lord Waddington said:
  "My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I stand condemned of the most appalling naivety? I had not the slightest idea of all the comings and goings between the Liberal Front Bench and the Government. If I had known more about that, I would have thought twice before speaking."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 26.]
  He, too, was appalled when he understood the nature of the squalid and cynical deal that had been stitched together between the Government and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should stop digging. As soon as Lord Waddington had been nobbled by his Whips, he decided to resile from the position that he had put on the record, not once but twice, supporting the compromise. The hon. Gentleman should be careful.
  I shall set out the options that were open to us once we had accepted the constraint that the Government would not allow decoupling. We thought long and hard about how to empower local communities and get round some of the problems involved in the Government's intention to push the enforced coupling of the two issues.
  There were four alternatives. The first was that people in the areas that had experienced local government reform should vote on one option proposed by the boundary committee for England. If the majority voted no, another solution would be imposed. That idea was batted about. We did not like it because eventually it could have led to an imposed solution.
  348
  Secondly, if the option proposed by the boundary committee was rejected in a vote, a further solution could be put to a referendum; there would be a second ballot. We had more sympathy with that proposal, but it could have meant an expensive and time-consuming series of ballots, so there were some disadvantages.
  Thirdly, if the proposed option was rejected in a vote, the elected regional assembly would decide on the reform of local government in its area. Again, we had some sympathy with the proposal, but there could have been practical problems, especially in the first wave of regional referendums. The powers would not have been enacted and it would have been some time before the first regional assemblies were elected, so there could have been instability in local government. We spent some time exploring that option, although it was not practical.
  Having rejected three possibilities, we ended up with the proposal that we are discussing today: that the boundary committee should be required to produce at least two options for local government reorganisation, which should be put to the ballot. That seems the best possible solution, given the constraint imposed by No. 10 that there will be no decoupling. It is important for the House to realise that careful negotiations were undertaken and that we thought long and hard about the solution that we are discussing: it is the best one possible.
  The proposal has four benefits. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, only those voters affected by local government reorganisation will be able to vote. In other words, those outside the area affected will not be able to vote. That is important, and it deals with a damaging part of the Government's original proposals, which we strongly opposed. My right hon. Friend put a strong argument against them.
  The second benefit is that there will be a vote. As we have already heard, under the previous Conservative Government there was no vote on whether unitary government should be established. People in the areas affected were given no choice; they had no democratic voice. The proposal is thus a major step forward. It is worth emphasising that this is the first time in the history of this country that local people will have the chance to vote on the form of local government in their area. That concession was wrung not only from Ministers but from Whitehall. It is the sort of thing that Whitehall does not like, so it is a major achievement for the whole House as a democratic body.
  The third benefit is that there will be a real choice, not merely a take-it-or-leave-it. There could be as many as four options, one of which could even be that the unitary authority was a county council. The key point is that voters will have a choice.
  Mr. Hammond: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I put to the Minister earlier? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the boundary committee being directed? It is possible that the four choices would be merely nuances of each other, so does he envisage radically different choices being put to the electorate?
  Mr. Davey: The boundary committee must make the recommendations that it deems best. It would be odd,

  349
  however, if the committee came up with two or three very similar proposals. I am sure that the committee will take note of the arguments that have been made in this place and will want to give people real choice, so presumably there will be real differences between the options that it proposes.
  The fourth benefit, on which I am sure that the Conservatives will not agree, is that the compromise solution will produce a much better chance of wining the referendums on regional assemblies. There was real concern that those devolutionists who wanted regional government would have to vote against it because they disliked the local government reform tied to it. That was a problem, and it put those people in all political parties who argued for regional devolution in an almost impossible position. This solution gets us out of that problem and takes away an argument from some parties and people who are against regional devolution, so there are some real benefits.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that that solution is the only thing that had been won in this package. I can tell him that it is not: we shall come to some of the other issues later, but I shall just list them for him now. First, in the Government's original proposals, the boundaries of existing unitary authorities in various regions could not have been touched, even though it would have made sense to merge, for example, an adjacent district council with the existing unitary authority, but we have managed to persuade the Government to change their mind. That is very welcome, as it will allow an existing district to join an existing unitary authority where doing so makes sense because of local government boundaries. That is a common-sense, practical solution to a fundamental problem with the Government's original proposals.
  We have also persuaded the Government that they should use their best endeavours to publish a draft Bill before the first referendum. That is a significant victory. I accept that that is not in the Bill, but the Government are on record to that effect, having been previously opposed to that solution. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they were not opposed to it, and I do not have the Hansard reference.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We were never opposed to that. We always made it clear that we saw merit in the possibility of publishing a draft Bill, but we were concerned about the timetable implications. We will use our very best endeavours to ensure that a draft Bill is published before a referendum, so that people have the opportunity to see it, but the timetable implications remain the prime concern. That was the only reason why we were not previously prepared to commit to doing so.
  Mr. Davey: Right hon. and hon. Members may think that a nuanced shift, but it is still an important shift. When we argued with the Government, they did not seem that keen on the idea; they seemed not to want to be constrained or to make promises on the record. The Government have shifted, and I certainly take the Minister's good will in our discussions as a sign that they will try extremely hard to ensure that that Bill is
  350
  published before the first referendum. That is very important to ensure that people have the right information on which to vote—in other words, the details of what regional assemblies will be able to do—and that the House has a chance to start pre-legislative scrutiny and to try to argue for more powers for regional assemblies.
  One of our problems with the Government's package of regional devolution proposals is that it does not pass enough power from Whitehall to the regional assemblies, but a draft Bill will allow us to begin to engage in that debate to ensure that more regional devolution takes place.
  I was also very pleased when one of the Minister's colleagues in the Lords confirmed in an parliamentary answer to the Earl of Caithness that
  "the Government are keen further to decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes. There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to elected regional assemblies as time goes on."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. WA67.]
  The Government are clearly signalling that they are prepared to augment the powers of regional assemblies over time, and we very much welcome that. A number of concessions have been wrought from the Government during these negotiations. They did not go as far as we should have liked, and there is no shame in that. If we could have won everything, it would have been absolutely fabulous, but we have won a large part of the agenda.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge specifically mentioned regional boundaries, and it is worth commenting on that because my hon. Friends and I were concerned when we previously debated the Bill that there was no review of regional boundaries, and we still have that concern. I predict that, when the Government have gone ahead, as I hope that they will, with referendums on regional assemblies in the three northern regions—the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside—they will embark on a review of regional boundaries elsewhere in England.
  We will argue for such a review, especially when the powers Bill is introduced in the House. We have not given up on that point at all; we will be campaigning very hard. The logic of the politics is that there must be more regions in the rest of England outside the three northern areas. Neither I nor my hon. Friends believe that the current regional boundaries for areas, such as the south-west or south-east, make sense. They need to be reviewed, and we will press for that. I believe that a referendum could not or, indeed, should not be won until the regional boundaries have been reviewed.
  This set of Lords amendments makes a major improvement to the Bill. I am proud to be involved, with many others, in securing the amendments. The Government were persuaded by argument, which is an example of this House working at its best. I commend the amendments to the House.
  I shall end on this point: the Conservatives, who do not want to vote against the amendments, should at least confess that they do not want to give people choice. Not only are they against regional government; they are against giving people the choice of regional government. Not only are they against local government

  351
  reorganisation; they are against giving people the choice of local government reorganisation. From being the party of choice, they have got themselves into a sorry state.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I, too. welcome Lords amendment No. 3, as it will give my constituents in North Durham a say not only in a tier of regional government but in their local government structures, which, as we have heard previously, they have been denied in the past.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is a passionate advocate of regional government, which is a passion that I share. We disagree, however, about reorganisation of local government. I have always argued that having a tier of regional government necessitates a review of local government. The reason is that I do not accept that voters in any area will vote for more politicians or an extra tier of government on top of what already exists. A clear case exists that Durham is currently over-represented in local government. In the seven parliamentary constituencies that cover Durham, we have 421 councillors: an average of 60 councillors per constituency. The neighbouring area of Tyne and Wear has 13 parliamentary constituencies and 339 councillors: an average of 26 per constituency. It would be difficult to argue to the electorate that putting another tier of regional government on top of that would be efficient.
  There is also an opportunity to address some of the disparities that already exist in local government in County Durham.
  Joyce Quin: Perhaps I can make my position clear. Certainly, we should not rule out considering the numbers involved in local government at present, or those in the House of Commons, in terms of the modernisation of our democracy. However, in terms of the immediate issue, I was simply not keen on the link being drawn between local government and regional government. Some of my hon. Friend's points, however, are very worthy of consideration.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that clarification. This is an opportunity to address some of those issues.
  As I said, I do not think that the electorate will vote for more politicians. In Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) described what the Minister referred to as the Liberal Valhalla, in which the electorate would come forward with great gusto to vote for more councillors and more local representatives. I simply do not think that that is the case.
  We have heard again this afternoon, as we heard in Committee, that this Bill means the end of county councils. I do not think so. In County Durham, a strong case exists that the county area should be that of the new unitary authority—at present, it spends 80 per cent. of the local government budget in the county—and I shall argue strongly for the new unitary authority in that regard. Currently, the two-tier system does not work, it is inefficient, and I simply do not accept the idea that local people somehow identify closely with Derwentside or Chester-le-Street district councils as bodies for which they will do or die.
  We are now at an historic moment in the development of regional policy in this country. People in the north-east have waited a long time for a chance to vote for and
  352
  elect a democratically elected tier of regional government, which will make a great difference not just in terms of ensuring that their voices are heard nationally, but in giving them a sense that their identity, about which they all feel strongly, is recognised, as is the case in other parts of the nation.
  The amendment is sensible. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, it will provide an opportunity for the Bill to get through. Over many years, the Conservatives made deals in this House and the other place to ensure that legislation got through, and this sensible amendment will be welcomed in County Durham.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said. If we are going to go down the line of regional government, we must lose a tier of local government. That is one of the reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of regional government.
  There is something worrying about a handful of MPs sitting in the Chamber on the eve of an important local government poll discussing the minutiae of a Bill that, as we have been reminded by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), No. 10 does not even want. It has resisted it, and the fact that we are debating it today is a sop to the Deputy Prime Minister. If we were not here but instead campaigning for the local government elections, we would find that no one was raising the issue of regional assemblies on the doorsteps. People are concerned about their council taxes escalating and local schools facing a funding crisis. Those issues concern the electorate—not this sophisticated argument about changing the local government structure of the regions.
  I remind the House of the answer that I received from the Minister of State when I asked him about the level of interest in regional government in the north-east. He told me that, by the 3 March deadline—I appreciate that it has been extended—there had been only 4,500 responses from the whole of England and Wales, of which 300 were from the north-east. To argue, as the Minister did, that those 300 people are somehow all representative of huge organisations and bring with them a block vote to the debate is, I regret to say, arrant nonsense. The people of the north-east do not want an assembly; they could not care less about it. Even the polls conducted by the Journal newspaper, which we all know is an absolute enthusiast for regional government, show that the majority of people that it questioned—we never knew the size of the sample—were against the idea of regional government.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I agree that if we hold a referendum in the north-east it will be a big job to convince people to vote in favour of an assembly. Will the hon. Gentleman say today whether he and the Conservative party in the north-east will campaign for a no vote in that referendum?
  Mr. Atkinson: I cannot speak for the entire party in the north-east, but I shall certainly campaign against a regional assembly. I do not want local government in my authority of Northumberland to be smashed up, but that is exactly what would happen. It is true that, perhaps in Northumberland as well as Durham, it may well be that the county survives and the districts die.

  353
  The problem with Northumberland is that it has a population of 300,000 compared with populations of nearly 2 million in Essex and Kent. It is a tiny number in a large landmass that is currently served by six district councils. It would be a very difficult for the boundary committee to decide to have a number of unitary districts with a total population of 300,000. Therefore, it would tend to go for a unitary county, but there is a huge disadvantage with that.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on this point. The huge disadvantage of a unitary county is that the whole of Northumberland would be run from the centre, which is many miles away from the people of Berwick, Haltwhistle or the west of my constituency.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would prefer to keep the present system in which most local government decisions in Northumberland are taken by Northumberland county council, dominated, as it is, by the urban south-east? Would he prefer the continuance of that to, for example, a unitary authority based on the boundaries of his constituency, which would be a substantial area and similar in number to some existing unitary authorities?
  Mr. Atkinson: At the time of the last proposed reorganisation of local government, I was certainly in favour of dividing Northumberland into three unitary authorities if that was the option for change. However, it became clear that the boundary commission would not have that. It was pointing to a very out-of-touch unitary county.
  3.45 pm
  The real purpose of my remarks is to ask the Minister to flesh out one or two additional pieces of information about who may vote. It is curious that I am still learning more about this complex Bill at the eleventh hour. I did not serve on the Committee, so I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I think that the Minister talked about the Morecambe Bay option, meaning that the boundary committee could move part of an existing unitary authority into an area currently covered by a two-tier authority. I shall give an example from the north-east. I have explained that the county of Northumberland has a small population and a large area. It is hypothetically possible that the boundary committee could decide to create two unitary authorities and return the area covered by the old county borough of Tynemouth back to Northumberland to boost its population, which would be highly popular.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkinson: The Minister does not think that that will happen, but if it did, would the people living in the area covered by the old county borough of Tynemouth be able to vote in the local government referendum? If
  354
  that were the case, it would introduce a new and interesting aspect to the Bill. Will he confirm that the boundary committee could include part of Tynemouth in a part-Northumberland unitary authority? That would allow us to reopen the argument of whether people living in unitary authorities could be moved into a different area, even if they could not vote on that.
  I am not sure whether that was clear. During these debates, one always has the choice of staying in the Chamber or going to lunch. I decided to stay, although I am not sure whether that was a good idea because I am probably more confused now than I was when the debate started. I hope that the Minister will address the problem in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Don Foster: Until a few months ago, before I went off to play with trains, boats and planes as the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, I had responsibilities for these matters. I must confess that when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) took over those responsibilities, I was feeling fairly depressed about progress on the development of regional government in England. I am delighted to say that I feel far more optimistic than I did then, which is largely due to my hon. Friend's endeavours. I congratulate him on his work.
  It has been said on several occasions, not least by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), that Liberal Democrats have long argued the clear principle that issues relating to regional government should be decoupled from those relating to local government. I still believe, as do my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton and my colleagues in another place, that that would represent the right way forward. It is almost incomprehensible that the Government are not prepared to accept arguments for such decoupling.
  I do not accept that the establishment of regional government, for which my party has argued for a long time, would add an additional tier of governance in England. We already have a tier of regional governance. There are many unelected quangos that spend billions of pounds in our regions, have a huge associated bureaucracy and cost a great deal. The establishment of directly elected regional government in each of the regions would provide the opportunity not only to reduce cost and bureaucracy, but to allow much more joined-up thinking than may occur through the work of those separate quangos. We would also fill the democratic deficit that exists because people would be elected to represent local people and determine how money that is intended to help them should be spent.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that despite the Government's protestations, they are imposing an additional tier of government on many parts of the country that are already under unitary local government?
  Mr. Foster: One important principle that the Liberal Democrats and I hold is that decisions on the number and arrangement of tiers is best made by the people whom the tiers serve. I have always rejected the argument that central Government should impose such decisions on local people. I deeply regret the way in

  355
  which Conservative Administrations imposed rearrangements of local government on local people without those people voting on the proposals.
  Mr. Swire: Given that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the number of quangos that handle so much money and would prefer regional government of one sort or another, does he agree that if a region votes against an elected regional government, the unelected regional assembly in that area should cease to exist?
  Mr. Foster: No, I do not. If a directly elected regional assembly is not supported, there is merit in considering ways to integrate some of the different quangos and allowing the unelected assembly, which represents many groups, to have greater powers of scrutiny of those quangos and the RDAs. The representative assemblies were a good move and are welcome.
  I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would argue that my support for regional government and the suggestion that it would sweep away those quangos was a fanciful thought because the Government's proposals will not achieve that as they stand. In that context, it was encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton stress that the Government's answer in another place reflects their willingness to address and enhance the powers that the directly elected regional governments will have. Hopefully, they will be responsible for more quangos. I welcome that and look forward to hearing the Minister assure us that that will be the case.
  Given that there is no obvious correlation between the roles of regional government and local government, there is no need to link them in the way that the Government initially proposed. They should be treated separately. If there is a case to reorganise local government in an area, it might be appropriate to discuss that, but that should not be linked to the establishment of regional government, which is, after all, about democratising a tier of governance that we already have. Nevertheless, it was made clear—not least by the intransigence of No. 10 Downing street—that the Government would not adopt that approach, so it was sensible to find a compromise.
  My noble Friend Baroness Greaves was mentioned in the context of the Liberal Democrats being blackmailed on the issue. I have much respect for my noble Friend—
  Mr. Hammond: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of respect for his noble Friend, but he obviously does not know who his friend is because he is, in fact, Baron Greaves.
  Mr. Foster: I think that we are both wrong.
  Lord Greaves, better known to his friends as Tony—I count myself as one of his friends—was wrong. If blackmail were involved, it was the other way around, admirably organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Government, and in particular the Minister, knew that without such a compromise the Bill would be lost for the very reasons set out by the hon. Member for Runnymede and
  356
  Weybridge. They had a great deal riding on this and if anyone could be accused of blackmail it is my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I can confirm that that was our position. We agreed as a team that we would have to kill the Bill if the Government did not give way. We did not want to do that, but we were prepared to act in that way.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for confirmation of what I assumed to have been the case. As a result of that, my hon. Friend was able to wring from the Minister a number of concessions, which he has outlined. It seems that at the last minute several people were wringing concessions out of the Minister—even his noble Friends on the Front Bench in another place. I note that Lord Rooker, speaking at 3.30 pm two days ago in response to Baroness Hanham, having been told that he was being rather curmudgeonly on that occasion, said:
  "My Lords, I am cheesed off, having been ultra friendly and having wrung an extra little concession out of my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford as late as twenty past two this afternoon."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 457.]
  Everyone managed to wring concessions out of the right hon. Gentleman up to the last minute.
  I am delighted that it was as a result of Liberal Democrats that the major concessions were obtained. Those are major concessions. They might not have been what we wanted, but it is important that if the local government decision was to be linked with the regional government referendum, local people would have a choice. It was important that it was only local people affected by that decision who would be involved in making the decision.
  During an earlier exchange we saw the difficulties of linking the two. It is still not clear to me whether it will be possible for a group of people in one local government area effectively to hold to ransom the entire region. We have not had a clear answer from the Minister in that regard, but no doubt in the course of proceedings today he will get further little notes that will provide a clearer answer to the question. That may even result in our having wrung a further concession out of him. The important thing is to adopt the advice offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that where there is a need for a second vote on the local government issue, there should still be plenty of opportunity for the regional arrangements to continue before a final decision is made, and the proceedings should not be held up.
  In grown-up politics we should end the Punch and Judy approach. Where there is a greater goal—in this case, the introduction of powerful, democratically elected regional government—it is sometimes necessary to make compromises. The proposals today offer a much greater likelihood of the advent of regional government. I am delighted not only that the amendments are part of that compromise, but that there is more in the pipeline, such as the discussion about improving the powers of regional government.
  As I no longer have responsibility for these matters on behalf of my party, I am no longer in a need-to-know position, but I noted with considerable interest the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and

  357
  Surbiton when he assured the House that he was confident that after the first three referendums took place, there would be a reconsideration of the boundaries. On what basis he gave us that assurance I know not, but he is in a need-to-know position and I am not. I welcome that further concession, if that is what it is.
  In conclusion, regional government is long overdue. I am delighted that by agreeing the amendments and the compromise today, as I hope the House will, apparently without a Division, we are moving forward the cause of regional government rather more rapidly than I thought possible just a few months ago.
  Mr. Beith: The area that I represent will be directly affected by the Bill and the amendments. It is an area in which many people believe that we ought to have more decisions made closer to home, in the north-east rather than in London, just as, when we look across the border, we see that Scots are able to have decisions made in Edinburgh rather than in London. It is also an area in which many people would have been faced with a difficult choice if they had been told that in order to have a regional assembly, they had to accept one and only one possibility for unitary local government. Further, they were being told that they would not decide that issue, although they would be casting a vote on whether to have a regional assembly. The far greater numbers of people in unitary areas, who need not be influenced by this point at all because it would not affect them, would, by voting for a regional assembly, determine that the minority of areas got that change in the local government structure.
  4 pm
  Those were offensive features of the Bill and they were likely, as I think is now agreed on both sides of the House, to undermine the genuine arguments for the creation of regional assemblies. I therefore welcome the amendments and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), because I know how much work he did on this, and our local Government team in the Lords, which I am bound to commend because it includes my wife, which did excellent work and had to make the difficult decision about what could be secured while ensuring that we continue to have the Bill; and what was secured was extremely valuable. I am also grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) who from the beginning has made it clear that she wanted the Bill to be changed in this way.
  Andrew George: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must praise the achievements of our hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), certainly for the significant concessions that have been wrung from the Government? Although from the perspective of his region my right hon. Friend might see the Bill as being half full, when from a Cornish perspective it may appear half empty, at the end of the day that is a geographical view, not a political difference.
  Mr. Beith: I am not sure that I understood my hon. Friend's intervention, but I did understand my own
  358
  words when I praised my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who used to work for me in days gone by and whose work on the Bill has been as excellent as was his work when he was a member of my staff.
  The value of the amendments is not only that they remove those offensive features of the Bill, but that they bring a new principle into local government reorganisation in Britain, a principle which would have been welcome when the Conservative Government were going around abolishing counties, creating unitary authorities, and putting people in areas that they did not want to be in, but which they never for a moment entertained and which even today they are ambivalent about—which is why they do not want to vote at all either for or against this set of amendments. They do not want to admit the principle that people should have a choice in these matters. We think that that is a good principle.
  Obviously, as my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West made clear, many of us would have liked the choice to include the retention of a two-tier system, although as I shall come on to say in a moment, there are increasing arguments against the two-tier system and in favour of a unitary system. The Government believe that those arguments are conclusive if the additional tier of regional democracy is introduced. It is only an additional tier of democracy; it is not an additional tier of government. The apparatus of government is already there. It is an additional tier of democracy, and one that we believe is necessary because powers are being exercised at regional level.
  Another effect of the amendments is to remove the notion that the Bill is either about or will necessarily lead to the abolition of counties. If people in a given area believe that the county is the finest form of government ever known to man—a view that did not use to be held in the Conservative party when it abolished Herefordshire, Worcestershire and the royal county of Berkshire—they can vote accordingly. If my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), believes that what remains of the old county of Northumberland—it is not the historic county of Northumberland, the county for which people play cricket, although not, I am sorry to say, first-class cricket, but the county that exists for many voluntary organisations—is the right structure, he and others who believe that can vote for it, because they will in future be given a choice.
  It is likely that the range of options that the boundary committee will put forward if it has any sense—as I used to answer questions for the Electoral Commission I am bound to say that I think there is quite a lot of sense in there—will include an option that comes close to a county-based option, and one that is one much closer to the districts, or possibly, for example in the case of Northumberland, a county-based option, an option close to existing districts and one that falls somewhere between the two.
  That is where the argument and discussion will run in a county such as Northumberland. People will be asking whether there should be county-based government involving a lot of devolution to area committees and parish and town councils—the option for which the county council is trying to argue—or whether it would

  359
  be much better to recognise that local government can be run with smaller units nowadays because local authorities are not trying to provide services directly as much they used to do. Previously, they had vast staffs, but they are now enabling or contracting out more services and ensuring that a variety of other bodies put those services in place. Thus rather smaller districts are now considered more feasible than Whitehall civil servants, who like dealing with a relatively small number of authorities throughout the country, used to argue.
  Mr. Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman has obviously been close to the Electoral Commission, will he tell us whether he believes that the boundary committee should propose a unitary county option in every case? If so, does he think that the range of population sizes between different unitary authorities that that approach would involve if it were adopted throughout the country would be acceptable? The Minister was not prepared to agree with that proposition.
  Mr. Beith: I do not believe that we should prescribe that the committee should propose such an option in every case. It will have discussions in the areas for which it is formulating proposals. There may be no interest in an all-county option in a given area. None the less, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as I think that a large disparity is possible in the size of authorities. There is already a huge disparity in size between unitary authorities in cities with large populations and the relatively small unitary authorities of which I should imagine that he is in favour, such as Rutland.
  Many countries are not uncomfortable with such disparities and have large disparities in size between their local authorities. In such countries, the biggest local authorities will probably provide the whole range of public services, while smaller authorities can share responsibility with several others by grouping together with them in providing particular services. For example, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will find that there is no assumption in French local government that every local authority should be of the same size and cover the same population. That is a London view of local government, and those of us who represent different types of area should reject it from the beginning.
  The local government system needs to be much more flexible, to involve different scales of local authorities and to recognise that there can be co-operation. If there are two or three education authorities in an area that used to be a county, they will not run two or three educational psychology services; they will need to establish a leading authority, participate in a sharing arrangement or contract out that service to some other body, whether it is a private sector or public sector one, as will be much more likely in such cases. There is scope for a much more radical approach to local government that allows us to keep it as local as possible while ensuring that it does not have so many levels.
  That leads me to the unitary issue. It is argued that the choice that people will be given by the amendment—a choice that they would never have had before—is limited to a choice between types of unitary authority. I have referred to that drawback before, but I have become gradually more persuaded of the merits of
  360
  unitary authorities as a way of running local government. For example, most of our electors simply do not understand which local authority provides which service and find the current system extremely confusing. That confusion is apparent in my mailbag and in my constituency surgery, and it does not help democratic accountability. Indeed, many people will go to the polls tomorrow thinking that they are voting in respect of the education service in their area and not realising that they might be voting for an authority that has absolutely no influence or role in providing that service.
  Reference has been made to the large number of councillors needed under the two-tier system. There are almost 70 councillors in my constituency. In the current elections, 12 of them have already been elected unopposed; most of them are Liberal Democrats. In one ward, only two candidates stood for three seats, so there is a vacant seat. It is increasingly difficult to find people to take on the heavy responsibilities of local government. Many would argue that we do not need as many councillors as the two-tier system necessitates.
  I said that I had become increasingly persuaded, but I started from a position of being extremely worried about the creation of large unitary authorities when the Conservatives were in power and tried to impose unitary authorities on us. When Lord Heseltine was Secretary of State, he eventually backed off doing so. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, there are areas where it would be very difficult to impose a county-wide unitary authority without giving many people the feeling that it is far too remote from them in respect of many local government services. The two-tier system is a compromise to deal with services that might need to be delivered on a larger scale and those that can be delivered more locally. Smaller unitary authorities offer an alternative route. I am no longer wholly persuaded, however, that the two-tier system has sufficient advantages to outweigh its manifest disadvantages. I have talked to many councillors in the two-tier system who have come round to that view independently of all the discussion about the creation of regional assemblies.
  In an ideal world, I should want to resolve the issues separately. If, in the course of the process, the boundary committee managed to come up with a scheme of unitary authorities that was popular in Northumberland, and unfortunately we lost the referendum, some people—even Conservative councillors, if there are any left—might say, "Please can we still have the local government reorganisation that we spent all that time discussing, because we have decided that it is actually the best option?" If so, it will be because people have been able to exercise a choice, and the boundary committee has been forced to consider the alternative possibilities. It should not be allowed to take the easy option of saying, for example, that a minimum population of 200,000 falls within a county structure; it should forced to consider whether smaller-scale unitary authorities could co-operate to enable local government to function effectively. That process could result in a sensible review of local government in areas such as mine. It would certainly ensure that local people have a choice, which they never

  361
  had under the Conservatives, and would have been denied if my hon. Friends, with good support from other hon. Members, had not secured the amendments.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have had a thorough and detailed debate covering many issues. I shall try to be as brief as possible while doing justice to hon. Members' contributions and responding to the questions that were put to me.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) revealed the teal motivation for his response to the Bill in its current form—namely, pique that his hope of wrecking the Bill has been frustrated. Ultimately, what Conservative Members have tried to do throughout its passage is to deny people the chance of an elected regional assembly in those regions that want one. That is, of course, entirely consistent with Conservative policy. They opposed devolution to Scotland, to Wales and to London. They were defeated on every one of those occasions, and they are now opposing devolution to the English regions. I give him a forecast that they will be defeated again. Then, once again, they will change their tune, and in a few years' time we will hear a different tune on devolution in England.
  The hon. Gentleman continued with his bogus claim that our proposals mean the death of county councils. I simply say to him that there is absolutely no substance to that. There is no intrinsic threat to counties. The boundary committee will be free to decide what, in its view, are the best options for unitary local government and to put them forward. The people of each region that opts for a referendum will then be free to decide which they prefer. The boundary committee will have, in essence, two criteria: first, it must have regard to reflecting the interests and identities of local communities; and secondly, it must ensure effective and convenient local government. We will leave it up to the boundary committee to decide what options to come up with. We have not said that it should be limited to just two options—we have given it the freedom to decide to have more. It will also be for the committee to decide whether there should be one modelled on the county structure and one on the grouping of districts, or whatever other formulation it chooses. There will be no prescription—it will be for the committee to recommend the right way forward.
  As for the Conservative nostalgia for county councils, many other Members forcefully made the point that in the course of 30 years the Conservative party consistently abolished councils, giving the people of the affected areas no option to have any say whatsoever. The people of Berkshire and Cleveland had no say when their counties were abolished, the people of Hereford and Worcester had no say about amalgamation and so on. I could go on at length. It is therefore humbug for Conservative Members to claim to be the champions of county councils.
  4.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked an important question about the implications of
  362
  amendment No. 11, which would require the Electoral Commission to publish its views on the intelligibility of the referendum question. The Electoral Commission is already required to publish its views on the intelligibility of the main question on an elected regional assembly. It has done that and we have taken its views into account and amended the question accordingly.
  With the second question, the intelligibility of the formulation of the options for wholly unitary local government must be considered. We do not know what the boundary committee will recommend or how the options can be expressed. The amendment would therefore provide for the Electoral Commission to present its views at an appropriate stage. I hope that that explains the reason for the amendment. We cannot yet anticipate the exact formulation of the question, and the Electoral Commission must have an opportunity to consider its intelligibility and make recommendations, which we shall consider as we considered those on the wider question on the elected regional assembly.
  I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge conclude that he would not recommend that his party vote against the amendments, on the curious constitutional premise that it was bound to be defeated because of the size of the Government majority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) was right to say that in that case, we would have no more votes for the rest of the Parliament. Even without the assistance of the Liberal Democrats, the Government have a large majority and might be presumed likely to win every vote.
  I was first elected to this place when our party was in a small minority compared with a large Conservative party. We voted on principle, irrespective of whether we expected to win. I am astonished that today's Conservative party does not have the courage of its convictions and vote, even if it has opposed the amendments in the debate.
  Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend suspect that the Opposition realise that the amendment might prove popular after all and they do not want to be on the wrong side of the argument?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall not be tempted to make any more suppositions about the Conservative party's motivation. It has dug itself into a sufficiently large hole without my needing to help it.
  I was grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West in her contribution. She has been a stalwart supporter of regional government for many years and is obviously delighted that she can continue to give full support to the Government proposals. She believes that it is right for people to have a say about the form of unitary local government in the north-east region.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) clearly supported the amendments. He played an important part in the development and formulation of several of them. I pay tribute to his commitment to ensuring the Bill's passage and making available the option of regional government to people throughout the country. We believe that it is right that people should have that option and I know that that is the Liberal

  363
  Democrats' view. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman persuaded some of his Friends in another place who were less committed to regional government not to block the Bill. I am also pleased that they succeeded in avoiding the outcome that the Conservative party would have liked—of preventing the measure from reaching the statute book.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and assure him that we shall continue to work constructively to ensure that people have the option of regional government, and that the dream is realised for regions that want the ability to take charge of their affairs and have elected bodies in the region making decisions rather than Whitehall or quangos.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is also a strong supporter of regional government, and he reiterated his belief in the need for the appropriate reorganisation of local government. I am delighted that the amendments make possible the outcome that he clearly wishes for his county—if that is what the boundary committee comes forward with, I hasten to add, because that will not be my decision.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked whether unitary Tynemouth could be reunited with Northumberland. I am sorry to disappoint him, but we have no provision for an existing unitary area to be taken out of its current unitary status and transferred into a two-tier area. It is possible, however, that the boundary committee might recommend that part of the existing two-tier Northumberland might be connected to Tynemouth, or indeed to other adjoining unitaries. That would be up to the boundary committee to decide. If that were the case, only the people living in the two-tier area—that is, the existing county of Northumberland areas—would have the vote. As I explained in response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, that is because if we were to extend the vote to people within the existing unitary area, we would have the problem that has been highlighted earlier, of the votes of the people in the two-tier area being swamped by the much larger numbers living in the predominantly unitary area.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the reference that he just made to Tynemouth and Northumberland? He well knows that these issues are closely followed in the local press. Will he confirm that he was not in fact proposing that those two areas should be joined, but that it is an option that could be put forward?
  Mr. Beith: A hypothetical one.
  Mr. Jones: Indeed. Otherwise, we might see headlines tomorrow stating that Tynemouth is to become part of Northumberland.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating the possible misinterpretation of what I was saying. I was making it clear that the Bill now provides for the option, when the reorganisation of unitary local government takes place, for some parts of the two-tier areas to become linked to existing unitary authorities. That is the option, and it might happen in some parts of the country, but I have no view at all about
  364
  either the likelihood or the desirability of that happening in respect of any part of Northumberland, Durham or, indeed, any other region of the country. This is not my decision; it will be a matter for the boundary committee to decide. I certainly know of no proposal to link any part of Northumberland with the existing unitary authority of North Tyneside, to give it its proper title.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) intervened on him, because I was hoping that the Minister would set that hare running. It would have made headlines in the morning.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy that I have prevented that particular hare from running, and I shall resist the temptation to speculate as to what might be appropriate outcomes in other parts of the region. I must also apologise to the hon. Member for Hexham for having caused him a late lunch; I hope that he will be able to get away reasonably soon.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) finds it difficult to understand why we cannot de-couple regional issues from local government reorganisation. The answer is a very simple one. Unlike his party, we do not believe in the proliferation of tiers of government. Unitary local government exists in every area of the country in which there has been devolution—whether in Scotland, Wales or London, where we have the Greater London Authority. People are not, therefore, confused by a proliferation of different tiers of government. We believe that it is right that, where English regions opt for elected regional assemblies, there should be no more than two tiers of government below the national level—obviously excluding parish councils. Essentially, that means that unitary local government is, in our view, a necessary concomitant of the move towards regional government, and the two must go together.
  The only other interesting observation that the hon. Member for Bath made was that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton had been wrongly presented as having been blackmailed. The hon. Gentleman himself chose to portray his hon. Friend as the blackmailer rather than the blackmailed. I have to say that, on that one, his judgment is quite wrong. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has, as I have already made clear, shown a strong commitment to furthering the cause of regional government, but he has not been in the position of being either the blackmailed or the blackmailer. I am sorry that he has been done such an injustice by the hon. Member for Bath, to whom I happily give way.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister, although I shall leave it to others to decide who did the blackmailing. The evidence is fairly clear that my hon. Friend has wrung a large number of concessions from the Minister, and whether that is blackmail or not does not matter.
  May I make another point to the Minister before he moves on from me? I pointed out that I am not currently in a need-to-know position, but, nevertheless, we have had assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we can anticipate the

  365
  possibility of boundary reviews in come regions after the first three years. As I am not in a need-to-know position and as there are relatively few of us here, will the Minister at least bring us into his confidence on that issue?
  Mr. Raynsford: I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to remain in a position in which he has no need to know. All I can say to him is that we have no plans at the moment other than to proceed on the basis of the existing Government office boundaries. That is what is stated in our White Paper, but also in our White Paper we said that that does not preclude the possibility, at a future date, of some review of the boundaries. That has been our position consistently; that remains our position. He need read nothing into those remarks, as there is no change in the position.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) welcomed the amendments and the greater choice available to electors. He also made a number of interesting observations on how the case for unitary local government has become more persuasive over the years. He was absolutely right in talking about the public confusion over what responsibility lies with particular tiers of government. In answer to the hon. Member for Bath, I say that that is one of the strongest reasons for insisting on a unitary government framework where there is a regional tier, because the scope for confusion would be even greater if we had a regional tier, a county tier and a district tier responsible for different services.
  I very much appreciate the support of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I welcome the fact that by far the majority of Members who have spoken support the amendments. I hope that we can now agree to them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 19 agreed to, some with Special Entry.

  Clause 10

    EXCLUSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
    Lords amendment: No. 20.
    Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
    Mr. Leslie: After a long but very interesting debate on the previous amendment, it gives me enormous pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss in great detail, but fairly briefly I hope, the issues surrounding these Lords amendments, which relate to the circumstances for the exclusion of legal proceedings challenging the certification of a referendum or referendum results.
    Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are consequential on the introduction of a local referendum in areas with two tiers of local government, and it is right that the same provisions for legal challenge to a count should apply to
    366
    local referendums under the new clause 2 as well as to the regional assembly referendums under clause 1. These two amendments would achieve that. Amendment No. 22 represents a slightly more significant change rather than a consequential matter. I hope briefly to describe what that entails.
    There has already been quite a lot of debate in both Houses on the terminology used in what is known as the ouster clause—clause 10—which would prevent frivolous legal moves that might delay a Government responding to the result of a referendum. We have always said, and this remains the case, that serious challenges would not be barred, but we have listened and responded carefully to the debates and queries on the wording and meaning of the so-called ouster clause, which were raised in Committee, during earlier proceedings in this House and in another place.
    We feel that this amendment helps to clarify the matter. Legal challenges to the certification of referendum results will now be clearly allowable in two specific circumstances—if they are brought by a claim for judicial review, and if they are brought within six weeks of certification.
    4.30 pm
    The amendment was prompted in particular by questions about how third-party fraud might be handled if it occurred during a referendum process. What would happen if someone sought to issue a legal challenge to the certification of the result? We should draw a distinction between the processes involved in the counting officers' work and the actual certification process. Third-party fraud might not be considered to have occurred during the latter process. We felt that we should spell out the circumstances in which a legal challenge would be possible and might be necessary, and we have therefore specified both a time frame and a mechanism for such challenges.
    The amendments make clear the circumstances in which legal proceedings could be excluded or allowed, and improve the Bill in a way recommended by both Houses. I hope that this House will accept them.
    Mr. Hammond: This is a curious grouping. I can say that because I was advised by the Clerk last night that the Minister in charge, rather than Mr. Speaker, is responsible for grouping Lords amendments.
    Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21 extend to the proposed local authority referendum provisions already applying to the main referendum. We may have our differences about the Bill—indeed, we have aired them effectively this afternoon—but given that the House has already agreed to the earlier amendments, this must be seen as an uncontroversial proposal, ensuring some continuity of architecture.
    Lords amendment No. 22 is more substantive. Of course these are only words, but I am grateful to the Minister in the other place for accepting the need to clarify the fact—it is, I think, no more than a clarification—that the exclusion of access to the courts was never intended to mean exclusion of the possibility of judicial review. Nevertheless, given the principle that Acts of Parliament should be plain speaking, it is surely sensible to include a specific reference to the availability to a member of the public, or an organisation, of access to the courts through judicial review.

    367
    As I probably say about 500 times during the consideration of every Bill, I am not a lawyer. I was, however, interested to see a specific reference to a period of six weeks for the bringing of a judicial review application. As a layman, I understood that hitherto the law had stated that judicial review applications must be brought as soon as practicable, and in any event within three months. A relatively recent appeal decision suggested that "as soon as practicable" would normally mean six weeks, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Bill, though, specifies six weeks, with no reference to exceptional circumstances. My interpretation of that is that an application brought seven weeks after the relevant date would automatically fail without such a reference.
    Mr. John Taylor: Not least on the basis of my own experience, I urge my hon. Friend never to be deferential or apologetic about not being a lawyer. In a long career, I have encountered cases in which the lawyer knows the legal position exactly, but the layman knows that it does not matter.
    Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that pearl of wisdom; indeed, I am often grateful to him for such pearls.
    Perhaps the Under-Secretary could explain to the House whether it is intended that this provision is a precedent-setting departure, and whether the judiciary is supposed to infer something from it in relation to judicial review in general. That is a genuine question of some importance, although I realise that the Under-Secretary may not want to answer it off the cuff. If he has no advice readily to hand, I should be grateful if he offered a commitment to write to me about it.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome these amendments, which were agreed by all sides in the other place. It is interesting to note that when we raised these issues in Committee, the Minister was not quite so happy. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who tabled amendments in Committee. I had missed the point relating to judicial review when I scrutinised the Bill, and it was the hon. Gentleman who, with his razor-sharp analysis, raised it. I credit him for that, and I am glad that the issue was taken up in the other place.
    When we debated the hon. Gentleman's amendments—I was in total agreement with them; indeed, I voted for them—it seemed odd to me that we were not allowing judicial review on an advisory referendum on the basis that it might hold matters up, given that the United States of America had had a judicial review into some hanging chads on which the future of the American presidency was determined. The Government were taking a rather odd position, therefore, in not allowing judicial review.
    There was some debate as to whether judicial review was implicit, but as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, including such a provision in the Bill in plain English is a step forward, and I hope that future draftsmen of future Bills on related matters will learn from this experience. In conclusion, I offer my support for these amendments from the other place.
    Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that I have to interrupt the love-in between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative
    368
    party. I am of course more than happy to acknowledge the razor-sharp acumen of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), although not necessarily in respect of these amendments. Colleagues have told me that on the morning in question, the hon. Gentleman may have arrived in Committee a little late. I am not sure that that is true, so I shall check the relevant Hansard.
    These changes are reasonable and add clarity to the circumstances in which legal proceedings should, or should not, be allowable. The reason for choosing the six-week period is specific to this case; it is not a general principle that we are seeking to establish. We feel that it strikes the right balance between allowing a challenge to take place, and giving the Government the opportunity to get on with implementing the outcome of any referendum. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has spotted the normal rules in respect of judicial review for the three-month period, and the six-week period would certainly fall within that. But if there is anything to add to the comments that I have already made, I shall certainly endeavour to write to him. With those closing comments, I hope that the amendments can stand.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.

  Clause 13

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW: SUPPLEMENTARY
    Lords amendment: No. 24.
    Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33.
    Mr. Leslie: The amendments are largely a consequence of giving people a say in the shape of unitary local government in regions that opt for an elected regional assembly but that presently have two-tier local government. We have already debated the principles underlying that. The Lords amendments also alter the basis on which the boundary committee conducts local government reviews; a response to concerns expressed in both Houses during the Bill's passage.
    Amendment No. 25 would allow the boundary committee to consider the boundaries of existing unitary authorities where it makes sense to do so. The Government maintain the view that there is no need for a general review of unitary boundaries; an important point that I want to stress. The impact of the reviews should be limited, but we accept that, in some circumstances, the boundaries of existing unitary councils might need to be expanded to take in parts of an adjoining two-tier area.
    Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 make necessary changes to the local government review process to ensure that the Government can allow voters to consider different options for unitary local government in those parts of a region voting on an elected regional assembly where there is currently a two-tier local government system. The boundary committee will now have to make

    369
    recommendations for at least two options for each county area. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions mentioned earlier, if county boundaries are crossed, the referendum would apply to the combined areas of both counties. All options must be assessed against the same criteria; first, on the assumption that an elected regional assembly will be created and, secondly, with regard to the need to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government.
    Amendments Nos. 26, 28, 29 and 30 are minor technical adjustments to the Bill to facilitate the changes that I have described. Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 provide the Secretary of State with greater discretion to require the electoral commission, under part 3 of the Bill, to advise on electoral matters on the basis of different scenarios for local government restructuring. The changes are necessary because of what might arise when local government referendums take place in parallel with regional referendums. Amendment No. 32 gives the Secretary of State discretion to require that the Electoral Commission give advice on a specified number of electoral options when issues are at hand. Amendment No. 33 is a contingency provision for the remote circumstances in which we might need to vary an electoral direction outside the two-year period within which the Secretary of State must issue an order for an electoral provision following a vote in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly. I hope that the House will support the amendments.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Hammond: Time is short, so I shall focus only on amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Although the Under-Secretary presented them as consequential on the introduction of the multi-option local authority restructuring, they raise some questions. The amendments would give the Secretary of State the ability to direct the Electoral Commission to present a specified number of alternative ways of dividing up a regional assembly area for the purposes of elections. As the Bill stands, that exercise will not take place until after a referendum had been held. The Under-Secretary is not right to say that because of the possibility of adopting one of several local authority structures, it is therefore necessary to ask the Electoral Commission to come up with more than one solution.
    370
    I was intrigued by the similarity between what is being proposed with what was agreed in the other place about the local authority review. My principal question to the Under-Secretary is whether the Government intend to use a referendum to allow the inhabitants of a region that had opted for an elected regional assembly to choose between different alternative arrangements for the division of the region into electoral areas. The Electoral Commission could be directed to produce two or perhaps more solutions. Is that what the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Leslie: No, the Government do not have such thoughts in mind, although enthusiasm for extra referendums is clearly affecting the hon. Gentleman's thinking. A third referendum was not something that the Government intended. Perhaps I did not explain the purposes of Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 clearly. The second, local government, referendum will be significant because when the Electoral Commission draws up the constituency boundaries for an assembly, it may change its recommendations, depending on the options available in respect of local government reorganisation. That was the point that I sought to make. I hope that that is helpful and that the amendments will be accepted.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 35 agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) 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 Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 27th January 2003—
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  Subsequent stages
  Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put and proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.

  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
    Clause 2

      REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN SECURITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      4.48 pm
      The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      First, I should explain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction is in the western isles today, and that the privilege of taking this part of our consideration of the Bill through the House therefore falls to me.
      Lords amendment No. 1 clarifies the Government's intentions for the use of clause 2(1). It does not reduce the Government's flexibility to react to what happens to British Energy, but it does help to spell out our position with more clarity than might have been the case before. I believe that the House will welcome the change.
      I remind the House that the main function of clause 2(1) is to repeal sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989. Our intention in repealing those sections is to remove an impediment that exists at present, and to allow the Government to buy shares in British Energy in the event that the company goes into administration. That step would be taken only in that eventuality, and even then only if no private-sector buyer was to come forward. Throughout the Bill's progress through the House, we have stressed that although the company's solvent restructuring proposals appear to be progressing satisfactorily—and we welcome that—we must be prepared for every eventuality.
      In the course of the debates on the Bill, in this Chamber and in the other place, fears were expressed that clause 2 would create new powers for the Government. Concern was expressed in particular that the reference in clause 2 to acquiring "securities of any company" might give the Government a new right of compulsory purchase.
      The clause was certainly not intended to do that. Lines 16 to 18 on page 2 of the Bill are there to clarify that the powers that the Government were able to exercise before the introduction of the 1989 Act will be properly restored once sections 72 and 74 are repealed.
      The Government consider that the amendment is not strictly necessary, but we have accepted that it helps to explain that this part of clause 2 is for clarification, and that allays entirely concerns that have been raised. I therefore hope that the House will agree to Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sorry that the Minister for Energy and Construction is not in his place. He seems to be making a habit of it: when we debated the Sustainable Energy Bill, one of his ministerial colleagues stood in for him. On that occasion the Minister was not campaigning, but properly carrying out negotiations in the British interest on a gas deal with Norway. Indeed, given the critical position of the
      372
      United Kingdom's future supplies of natural gas, after the complete inadequacy of the Government's White Paper, the hon. Gentleman would have been better employed in continuing to work for the future security of our energy supply than in campaigning in the western isles. However, such are his priorities and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber.
      The amendment is described as a drafting amendment. It is remarkable that my noble Friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding, managed to convince the Government that they should include the expression
      "For the avoidance of doubt".
      It must be unique in legislation for a Government to accept and propose for the endorsement of the House an expression that is, as the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness has told us, formally meaningless.
      I congratulate my noble Friend on convincing the Government that those words should be included. He was making a point about the doubt that runs through the whole Bill. Ultimately, none of the reassurances that have been given by Ministers in this place and by Lord Sainsbury in the other place have the weight of statute law. The Government were presented with a series of opportunities that would have enabled them to avoid doubt, yet all that we have been able to secure from them is this amendment.
      The Bill comprises a raft of issues, not least the potential for unlimited public expenditure to support the company. The Government had the opportunity to ensure that such expenditure was limited. We were even told by Lord Sainsbury that the Government had no desire to go beyond the spending limits already set out in existing legislation. However, even though—for the avoidance of doubt—the Opposition proposed an amendment that would have quadrupled those limits, the Government would not accept it. We are left with merely a humorous aside.
      The Bill is riddled with doubt as to the Government's intentions and their request for flexibility in dealing with British Energy. All the proper limits that we requested have been reduced to the expression
      "For the avoidance of doubt".
      That the Government believe those words will bring clarity merely reinforces the concerns expressed about the Bill in this place in our previous debates and by my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, a former Minister for Energy, when he persuaded the Government to accept the amendment.
      This is not a good Bill: the incorporation of the amendment—that little phrase—is to be welcomed as it makes the point.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Timms: My noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury introduced these amendments on Report in the other place. I hope that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr.

      373
      Blunt) can be a little less churlish in his welcome for them than he was for amendment No. 1. The effect is to change the scrutiny arrangements for the delegated power in clause 2 from the negative to the affirmative procedure—a change that I am confident will not be opposed by those on either side of the House.
      Let me remind the House of the rationale behind the decision to take a delegated power to repeal part 2 of the Electricity Act 1989. The outright repeal of sections 72 and 74 has been discussed already, but it will give the Government the option to repeal any further sections in part 2 of the 1989 Act—a part that is now largely redundant. The reason for taking the delegated power is simply that we wanted more time to consider the effect of repealing the provisions in part 2 before doing so and to ensure that there is no adverse effect.
      The Bill was originally drafted with the negative procedure attached to that power, as we considered that sufficient given that the power is relatively minor. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment—I think that the hon. Member for Reigate did so—but there was not enough time to debate it. Concerns were expressed in the other place, most notably by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which was concerned that the Government could, in theory, repeal live and significant provisions in the 1989 Act.
      The Government recognised the concern expressed in both Houses and agreed to change to the affirmative procedure. My noble Friend therefore moved Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to give effect to that change. Lords amendment No. 2 makes it clear that the order would be made by statutory instrument. Lords amendment No. 3 sets out the procedure to approve the order. The change will not adversely affect the original aims of the Bill, and I ask the House to agree to these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Blunt: Of course I would not want to be seen to be remotely churlish in wholeheartedly welcoming these Lords amendments. It is, frankly, an absolute scandal that we should have to consider them anyway; we should not have had to amend the Bill so that the negative procedure in either House is not used when the Government seek to take powers to repeal great chunks of legislation.
      When the Government originally introduced the Bill, their case was that the sections of the Electricity Act 1989 that might be repealed were all superseded by the fact that privatisation had taken place, that things had moved on and that that legislation was redundant. What are all the officials doing in the Department of Trade and Industry? Why were they not preparing properly for the Bill, so that they could tell us during its various stages of consideration, exactly which parts of the 1989 Act were redundant and should be repealed properly by the Bill? We attempted to give the Government the opportunity to do so, but, again, they wanted everything to be taken on trust.
      The Government initially tried to ignore the recommendations on procedure made by the Select Committee to which the Minister referred. Of course I
      374
      am pleased that the Government have, in effect, accepted the amendments proposed in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Miller, by reworking them in the Government's own words, but it should never have come to this.
      It says something about the Government's mindset and the assumptions that underlie their position that they should even think of taking powers by the negative procedure in either House of Parliament to repeal chunks of legislation. I say that happily with the Leader of the House in his place, and I hope that, under his tenure of leadership, the Executive will treat this institution with proper respect and that we will not have such an occasion again when their Lordships' House has to introduce amendments to show proper respect for Parliament.
      The House should not be taken for granted. The effect of these Lords amendments is welcome because that will not happen, but those provisions should never have been included in the Bill in the first place. Of course, as these Lords amendments were Conservative proposals, as the Minister has pointed out, we wholeheartedly welcome them, and we will certainly support them. I commend them to the House, but it should not have come to this, and I hope that it will not happen again.
      5 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). This is not, of course, another forum to debate the Bill as a whole, with which we are profoundly happy, but we have been trying, as have the Conservatives, both here and in the other place, to increase the precision of the Bill and to improve parliamentary scrutiny. The proposal is a small gesture in that direction, which we very much welcome.
      I want to pose a few issues of substance relating to the Bill, to inquire about the circumstances in which these affirmative procedures might be used. What changes in context might lead to fresh action having to be taken in relation to the industry? First, under the existing arrangements, the Government have made a loan of £650 million to the industry, and it is assumed that that will be repaid out of the surplus over operating costs following the restructuring that has now been agreed. Can the Minister indicate the progress of that repayment, and when the Government expect it to be completed, under the assumptions that I presume they are making in relation to the prices operating in the market? Clearly, if the assumptions are not right, the Government may have to return with fresh legislative changes under the procedures that we are discussing. A progress report would indicate the soundness of the assumptions under which the legislation is operating.
      Secondly, one of the other key uncertainties hanging around the Bill, which may result at some point in us having to revisit it through this procedure or some other, relates to the approval that must be given by the European Commission. I understand that that is a prolonged process. There are objections from the other producers, as the Minister knows. Can he indicate when the procedure is due to be completed, as I understand that it could take as long as 18 months?
      Thirdly, another of the key uncertainties underlying the Bill, which affects the whole operating economics of the industry and, therefore, the circumstances under

      375
      which we may need to revisit it with changes, concerns the excess capacity that operates in the industry. There has been a lot of uncertainty—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now abusing the confines of the debate. A very thin thread connects those matters to the Lords amendment that we are discussing. He would be advised not to develop those points further.
      Dr. Cable: My questions were posed in good faith and in the belief that they were fully within the remit of the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was never suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was acting in bad faith. I am merely trying to keep the House in order.
      Dr. Cable: Of course, I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I reiterate simply that we welcome the procedural changes, and I do not think that there will be any further question of a Division on the Bill. I fully accept the spirit of the Conservative spokesman's comments, however.
      Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he would like a little further information, and perhaps we can deal with the matter through an exchange of correspondence. Good progress is being made, however, particularly on the loan. As he will know, British Energy's Canadian assets were successfully disposed of recently, and, of course, part of the loan was to enable that operation to continue successfully. He need not have any concerns on any of those matters, therefore, although the amendments are not connected with the points that he raised.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that these amendments were tabled by Conservative Members, but that we simply did not have time to consider them in Committee because of the time allocated for the Bill. Does he think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs? What should be done to ensure that that does not happen again and that we do not have to rely on another place to put right what we have simply failed to achieve?
      Mr. Timms: Anyone considering the scrutiny that the Bill has received in its parliamentary process in this House and the other place will reach the conclusion that it has been very thoroughly scrutinised and that we have been able to make significant changes that have improved matters. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends need to examine how they manage their contributions in Committee to ensure that there is adequate time for scrutiny of important issues. Large amounts of time were applied to matters of little importance and, as a result, significant issues were left. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

  Modernisation of the House of Commons
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: There has been a depressing pattern to these motions of late. Sadly, under new management, the Government appear to be following the same practice. I hope that, at some point, the new Leader of the House will assure us that the practice will cease. However, I suppose that we have to give him a little time to run himself in before he realises what is going on.
  The motion looks routine—some might say almost bland—but it contains some potentially rather controversial elements. The House would want to pause a moment to consider whether we want to go ahead with the motion in its present form, given its implications.
  The motion deals with the so-called Modernisation Committee, which is a Select Committee of the House. I have never concealed my views on modernisation. The so-called modernisation process has been a wicked and evil development that has systematically diminished the power of the House of Commons effectively to hold the Government to account. That is my view of what has come to be called modernisation. Debates and votes have been eliminated and the ridiculous deferred Division system has been introduced. Worst of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out in the previous debate, the systematic, routine and vicious timetabling of Bills in Standing Committees has led to most legislation not being properly scrutinised by the House.
  The Committee has radically changed the relationship between the House and the Government over the past six years or so; anyone returning to the House after an absence would find it unrecognisable. All the proposals emanating from the so-called Modernisation Committee have been to the detriment of the House of Commons as a legislature. Therefore, we are entitled carefully to consider proposals, such as the one before us, that change the membership of the Committee.
  The first issue that arises, self-evidently, is that, following the departure of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who had been its Chairman and President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, we now rightly confront the anomaly of the phenomenon of a Select Committee being chaired by a senior member of the Government. In other words, a member of the Executive is chairing a Committee that is supposed to decide what the relationship should be between the Executive and the House.
  It is arguably wrong not only for a senior member of the Government to chair a Select Committee, but for the Modernisation Committee, of all Committees, given the role it has played in altering the relationship between the House and the Government, to be chaired by a member of the Government in whose interests it could be to diminish the role of the House and enhance that of the Executive. The House has taken that for granted all too readily during the five or six years in which the revolting Committee has been in existence.

  377
  The apparently innocuous motion provides us with the opportunity to examine directly whether the House is satisfied with the fact that having just got rid of the previous President of the Council as the Chairman of the Committee—although he got rid of himself, strictly speaking—it is invited to appoint a new one. I shall address the chairmanship in a moment, although only in passing because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me that even an attempt to explore that issue is not strictly relevant, which I accept. The motion invites us to add the new President of the Council, who is a senior member of the Executive, to the membership of the Committee. That is why the House should pause and decide whether it should endorse the motion.
  I wondered whether my colleagues and I should table amendments to the motion to change the membership of the Committee. I hesitated and decided against that for a proper reason: until now, we have always honoured the undertaking that neither side of the House interferes with the right of the other to nominate Committee members. I want to honour that proper relationship. However, we could reject the motion and compel the Government to suggest different names. If the House did that, it would have decided that it was entirely inappropriate for the President of the Council to be a member of the Modernisation Committee for the reasons that I have outlined.
  The situation is worse that that. The motion proposes that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) should take the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) on the Committee. What is the significance of that? The significance is where the hon. Member for Don Valley is sitting, because she is sitting loyally and supportively behind the President of the Council, and I understand that she has the honour to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  That poses a further dilemma, because we are invited to commit not only the folly of adding the President of the Council to the Committee but the double folly of allowing his Parliamentary Private Secretary to serve on it with him. How can we be sure of the impartiality and integrity of the Committee if members and pseudo-members of the Government serve on it? How can we expect the Committee to examine the relationship between the House and the Government in a proper, impartial and balanced way if at least two of its members are members—albeit one of them marginally—of the Government? [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) wish to intervene? I shall give him the chance to say something; I invite him to put something on the record.
  Mr. David Hanson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman declines my offer, which is a great pity because I am in a generous mood. If he wishes to speak, he has only to catch my eye and I shall oblige him.
  So we have identified the issue that emanates directly from the role of the Committee both in the past and as it will be under the guidance of the President of the Council if he is made not only a member of the Committee but, as was his predecessor, its Chairman. I
  378
  consulted "Erskine May", as one always does if one is wise, to make sure of my facts, and on page 637, under the heading "Proceedings in select committees", it says:
  "Election of chairman. The chairman of a select committee is chosen by the committee itself except in rare cases when the House otherwise orders."
  We do not have the power or opportunity to order that today, whether we would want to or not, but I am happy that "Erskine May" confirms that when the Committee's composition is decided—whether we agree to the motion today or subsequently—it will be free to elect its Chairman.
  I hope that the Committee will consider our proceedings today. I hope it might even consider my modest contribution and—who knows?—the contribution of others, and ask itself a serious question: lumbered as it may be by the House with the presence of the President of the Council and his faithful and loyal Parliamentary Private Secretary, does it really want that same President of the Council to be its Chairman, or would it not rather have a more independent spirit?
  We have with us today the living embodiment of an alternative approach, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I did not tip him off about that, which is why he looks pleasurably surprised. He, as a distinguished and senior member of—for the time being—the Opposition, chairs another key Committee that is involved with matters pertaining to the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is now acknowledged—I pay tribute to the Government for this—that a senior member of the Opposition should properly chair that Committee.
  Following that precedent—I would go further, and I think my right hon. Friend would endorse what I say—his Committee recently accepted the proposal that no Parliamentary Private Secretary should serve on his Committee, because the fact that Members are Parliamentary Private Secretaries can sometimes raise a scintilla of doubt about their impartiality in dealing with the House or, in the case of my right hon. Friend's Committee, in dealing with Members.
  The precedent exists. What I am suggesting does not come out of the blue. It is not strange, new or different. A Committee of the House has already determined that it is proper and appropriate for a Committee dealing with House matters to be chaired by a member of the Opposition, rather than a member of the Government, yet the motion, with the names that it proposes, represents the denial of that proposition.
  It looks as though the Leader of the House intends to make a contribution to the debate. I hope he will. He is Looking pregnant, so perhaps he will honour us with his thoughts, once others have caught Madam Deputy Speaker's eye. I hope that we might hear the reflections of the Leader of the House on how, if we agree the motion, he would see his role as a member of the Committee, and whether he has any aspirations to chair the Committee and to submit his name in the proper way.
  If the right hon. Gentleman confirms that, and before we vote on the motion, the House would welcome his views on how he sees his role as a member, if not the Chairman, of the Committee and, more importantly, how he would square his vital role as President of the

  379
  Council and Leader of the House with his role as a member, if not the Chairman, of the Modernisation Committee, given the direct bearing that its recommendations have on the relationship between the House as the legislature and the Executive.
  I welcome the opportunity provided by the motion to explore these issues, to satisfy ourselves as a House that this is indeed the appropriate and proper way forward, and, even better, to hear from the prospective member and—who knows?—even the prospective Chairman, if the Committee were so to decide, how he sees that role and how he would see it developing, were he to be honoured with membership of the Committee and even more honoured by the chairmanship of it.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House deserves and requires an exposition from the Leader of the House and from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) of where they stand on modernisation? There are shades of opinion across the House as to the enthusiasm with which the process is received.
  Mr. Forth: I an grateful to my hon. Friend, as I sometimes have the suspicion that, on the Government side, enthusiasts for what has come to be known as modernisation—pathetic souls who want the House to do as little as possible and who want to see the Government triumphant on every occasion—are over-represented on the Committee. I hope that the hon. Lady might honour us with a brief exposition of how she would see her role on the Committee, in order that we can judge her suitability for it. The Committee could benefit from a dose of scepticism. That may or may not be forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady.
  This is an important parliamentary occasion. It is an opportunity for the House to give the matter some thought. I shall hold fire until I hear the debate, and perhaps what the Lord President has to say, before I decide how I shall vote on the motion.
  5.20 pm
  Sir George Young: I preface my remarks by saying that personally I have nothing against the Leader of the House. He is a man for whom I have deep respect and affection, and when after the next election my party is returned with a modest majority I hope that we will continue to pair as we used to in previous Parliaments.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for the restraint with which he spoke. He referred to a convention that when there is a vacancy on a Select Committee for one party, another party does not intervene. I think that I recollect that in the previous Parliament a motion proposing that my right hon. Friend be a member of the Commission was opposed. I am not even sure that it was not defeated in a vote. Therefore, he spoke with tremendous restraint this afternoon, against the background of the discourtesy that was extended to him when he was a candidate for the Commission—a post for which he has now assumed responsibility.
  Two issues arise, one of which concerns the role of Select Committees. As my right hon. Friend said, Select Committees are the vehicle by which the House of
  380
  Commons holds the Executive to account. There is a precedent for a Minister sitting on a Select Committee. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an ex officio member of the Public Accounts Committee, but he never returns. As I recall when I held the position, I turned up for one meeting and thereafter I played no part in its proceedings. It is crucial to the role of Select Committees that the Executive are not represented on them. The strength of the Select Committee system is that independent Back Benchers chair the Committees.
  The Leader of the House is one of the few members of the Cabinet who is not shadowed by a Select Committee. I suppose the other is the Prime Minister, but that deficiency has now been put right by the Liaison Committee interrogating the Prime Minister twice a year.
  One could argue that we should have a Select Committee that holds the Leader of the House to account, but what is proposed here—this is the second point that I want to make—is the clearest conflict of interest. The Leader of the House is a member of the Cabinet and it is his responsibility to deliver the Government's legislative programme. He plans the business of the House. If there is a problem with the passage of a Bill, he is answerable to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for what has gone wrong. He is in the Cabinet to deliver the Government's programme. There could not be a clearer conflict of interest than that same person chairing the Modernisation Committee, which decides the rules that the House will exercise in dealing with that same legislative programme. There could not be a clearer example of short-circuiting the system than the manager of the Government's legislative programme chairing the Select Committee that decides the rules by which that legislative programme will go through the House.
  We have an answer to the dilemma: the previous Leader of the House, who is now on the Back Benches, would be an excellent member of the Modernisation Committee. It would then be a matter for the Modernisation Committee to decide whether he should continue to be its Chairman. As a previous holder of that position, I happen to agree with many of the things that the former Leader of the House did. I do not agree with all the strictures of my right hon. Friend about the Modernisation Committee. I happen to believe that Westminster Hall was a sensible innovation.
  The answer to the dilemma that confronts the House is for the new Leader of the House to withdraw the motion and allow the Modernisation Committee to decide who of the existing members should be the Chairman. They may choose the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) or someone else. If one could do that this evening, one would answer the criticisms that have been made by my right hon. Friend and the House could adjourn at an early hour.
  5.24 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the House had before it a proposition that judges should also be foremen of the jury, it would be laughed out of court, but, in effect, that is what we are debating, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) elegantly made that point.

  381
  Like my right hon. Friend, I have absolutely nothing against the Leader of the House—quite the contrary. I think that he is an admirable man in every way. He has shown resourcefulness and political courage and he has performed—
  Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend's pair.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, not as my pair as well. I am just putting in a bid. I can think of very few Committees that would not be adorned by his presence and, indeed, by that of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but not while one is a member of Her Majesty's Government and the other is a bag carrier. That is wrong.
  I am one of those who has almost unreserved scepticism about the activities of the Modernisation Committee. When it was formed, I served on it briefly and referred to it at that time as potentially an emasculation Committee. That is what it has done to the House; it has taken away much of the power of the House of Commons and delivered to the Executive a control over the legislature that is inimical to the spirit of a free Parliament. I believe that it has done untold harm to this institution.
  I would like the Modernisation Committee to be swept away, bag and baggage, and replaced by a proper business Select Committee of the House to which the Leader of the House would indeed be answerable. Such a Committee would monitor his activities and he would be called before it. I had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, when the Foreign Secretary came before us. I believe that the Chancellor has today appeared before the Select Committee on the Treasury. That is the right relationship. Select Committees work pretty well in this place and, by and large, do not divide along party lines. I think that I am right in saying that all the reports that the Foreign Affairs Committee has produced during this Parliament have been unanimous. Of course, we have a Chairman who has been drawn from the Labour party, and that is perfectly proper, but we try to consider issues on their merits. That is how any Select Committee of this House should perform.
  What we need is not a Modernisation Committee driven by that spurious buzzword, but a Committee that truly monitors the performance of this Chamber and the various other Committees of Parliament and tries to see how best we should hold the Executive to account. That Committee should regularly examine and interrogate the Leader of the House, who should appear before it, and it should produce reports to the House on the way in which he discharges his functions.
  The Modernisation Committee has not served Parliament or the House of Commons well. I do not wish to see the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) remain on it because he has his own agenda and has made that very plain. If we are to have a Chairman drawn from the Executive, I would very much rather that it was indeed the Leader of the House than the right hon. Member for Livingston, because I think that he has less grandiose ambitions in the direction of
  382
  modernisation, and I hope that we will have bit of consolidation with him if we persist with this ridiculous Committee.
  I would also like to see some reversal, because one of the recent innovations of the Modernisation Committee, the changing of the hours of this House, has met a great deal of opposition even from many who supported the recommendations when they were placed before the House. Frankly, those recommendations were driven through by the then Leader of the House, who spoke in such a partisan manner. That was quite wrong.
  I urge the Leader of the House, whom I genuinely welcome to his new responsibilities and for whom I have a high regard, to take the motion away—
  David Davis: Can he speak against it?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend says, it would be very good if the right hon. Gentleman spoke against the motion. That would be marvellous; if he did so, he would earn a lot of brownie points.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take the motion away and to give serious thought to my suggestions regarding an entirely different Select Committee to monitor the affairs of the Chamber and the Committees of this House, and to which he would be answerable. If he cannot do that, I hope that, at the very least, he will offer us a self-denying ordinance whereby he will not seek the chair of the Modernisation Committee; that the Committee will genuinely, in a properly free and unfettered manner, choose its Chairman; and that neither he nor his charming Parliamentary Private Secretary will take part in any vote on that issue in the Committee. That is the very least that we can expect.
  I hope that when the Leader of the House responds he will acknowledge the force of at least some of the arguments that were advanced with the typically modest, self-effacing gentility of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the delightful verbal elegance of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, and my own bluff common sense.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I had not intended to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) jogged my memory when he mentioned the unfortunate precedent of one party's seeking to interfere with another's nomination in respect of the nomination to the House of Commons Commission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I recollect that that took the form of a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown—a Government motion—that was voted down by a large number of Labour Members, including 14 Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was among them; I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong.
  I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no Labour Member is trying to catch your eye—not least the hon. Member for Don Valley, because the House is owed an

  383
  explanation of her position on the spectrum of modernisation. We are, after all, being asked to substitute her for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons). As the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was reluctant to put on the record his sedentary intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who invited him to do so, I shall do it for him. He was shouting to my right hon. Friend that as the hon. Member for Rochdale, the PPS of the former Leader of the House, had sat on the Committee, it was entirely logical that the PPS of the new Leader of the House should do likewise.
  I do not follow that logic. Even if we accept it, however, we are still being asked to support a motion that will substitute two members of the Committee for two others. We are owed an explanation of the position of those members in relation to a subject that is highly controversial on both sides of the House. If they are to be believed, recent reports in the press give us some idea of the position of the Leader of the House on modernisation, which I find mildly encouraging, given my position on such matters. However, I want to hear the hon. Member for Don Valley give an exposition of her views about modernisation. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will do so; he certainly appears to be making notes. We can look forward to that, but our deliberations will be sadly lacking, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Lady does not seek to catch your eye.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has not yet sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I want to express my concern at the prospect of a Parliamentary Private Secretary taking up a valuable place on a high-powered, active Committee. By convention, Parliamentary Private Secretaries do not speak when they serve on Committees. That means that a place will be taken by a person who will say nothing. I am sure that the Leader of the House does not need someone to carry his bags into and out of the Committee. The hon. Member for Don Valley would be a bit part player on the Committee. Perhaps the best outcome would be for the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to take the two places. An open contest could ensue on who should become the Chairman.
  Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in some ways it would be a blessing if Parliamentary Private Secretaries on such a Committee said nothing, given that they are likely to speak only on matters that favour the Government rather than the House?
  Mr. Chope: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments, namely, that whatever a Parliamentary Private Secretary said would merely echo the views of Front-Bench Members and the Government position.
  Positions on the Committee are scarce. In a bidding process, I am sure that many bids would be made for a place. The current Leader of the House aspires to serve on the Committee, and the former Leader of the House would like to continue to serve on it. It would therefore be sensible for both to be members and for the Committee to determine the chairmanship.
  384
  There is an unhealthy development in the House whereby the Executive determines the chairmanship of Select Committees. That is inherent in the motion. I was first elected in 1983 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others—I believe that the intake included more than 100 new Members. Shortly after arriving, places became available on Select Committees. I did not serve on one, but a colleague believed that I did and invited me for a drink in Annie's Bar. He lobbied me strongly to vote for him as Chairman of that Select Committee. When I said that I did not believe that people who were not members had a vote for the Chairman, he admitted that he had mistaken me for another hon. Member. He abandoned his drinks immediately—it is fortunate that he had already paid the bill—and went off to try to lobby more effectively.
  That happened in an era when the Government, despite having a large majority, tried to keep their nose out of Select Committee's affairs. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to re-establish the convention that Select Committees should be run by hon. Members who are not part of the Executive and that the two should be kept separate.
  5.37 pm
  The President of the Council (Dr. John Reid): As ever, I came to the House this evening with great humility and reluctant to say anything. I regarded my addition to the Committee as a fairly minor matter and I was well aware that any contribution that I could make would be humble and restricted, especially compared with the auspicious contributions of the hon. Members who are present. I am fortified and a little flattered by the attention of so many prominent Members, especially from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, to my possible addition to the Committee.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will be gratified and reassured to know that I have reflected carefully on the matter. Ever since I entered the great ideological struggle in the forum of politics at the age of 16 or 17, my burning ambition was to be a member of the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons. The thought of participating in debates at the highest echelons of the parliamentary process ranked with our other priorities such as full employment and modernising the welfare state. However, it was not always the top the priority. I therefore reflected on the matter over the past few days with some misgivings and an understanding of my limited capacity to deal with such matters.
  Indeed, I consulted fairly widely on this issue and found a broad range of views. I discussed it with Labour MPs from all walks of life before I finally made the decision, and I am glad that we have had a balanced contribution tonight from the other side of the House. It is a pity that the Liberals are not here to add their contributions and to explain why we should have another penny on income tax, and matters of that nature. I understand that they are away, no doubt adding to their election effort and looking after their own interests rather than the interests of the nation. Despite the motivation to get involved in politics, members of the other parties here have had regard to their duties as Members of Parliament and not just as campaigners.

  385
  I can assure Members who were worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) displays on all occasions the independence of mind that we have come to expect from Labour MPs in here. Some would say that such independence has been displayed far too often in the Chamber in recent times, but it is nevertheless part of our thriving democracy in the House and inside our party. My hon. Friend knows well that she will be free to speak her mind if the motion is passed tonight.
  I therefore believe that this is, in the last instance, a reasonably straightforward motion. It proposes to replace two members of the Modernisation Committee with two others. I would claim no greater status for it than that. Moreover, it proposes to replace two members who no longer think it appropriate to serve on the Committee. Several hon. Members have indicated that they wished it were otherwise, but the former Leader of the House has said that, for reasons well known to the House, he no longer wishes to serve on it. Indeed, I think that he might even have said that to the Committee, long before this matter came before the House.
  Mr. Forth: The Leader of the House says that this is a simple, straightforward matter. Would he, however, grace us with a brief discourse on how he can reconcile his role as a senior member of the Executive with the role of the Modernisation Committee as a Committee of the House, and one that should enhance the role of the House vis-à-vis the Executive? How will he be able to do justice to those apparently conflicting roles?
  Dr. Reid: Whether it will be brief, or a contribution meriting the description of "discourse", I do not know, but I am going to turn to that issue because it is meritorious in terms of requiring a response, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman, who is so learned in these matters, raised it earlier, as did one or two of his colleagues. The point that I was making was not that this was a straightforward motion but that I came to the House thinking that it would be. However, in passing, we should note that the Leader of the House has served on the Modernisation Committee since its inception in 1997. Those who are listening to this debate in the House or outside it could be mistaken for thinking that some great radical unprecedented step had been taken this evening. In fact, I am the fourth—and probably the least worthy of those four—to have deigned even to step over the threshold of the Committee.
  I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by my predecessors— particularly that of my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston—as Chairmen of the Modernisation Committee. I shall come back to the question of Chairmen, as opposed to membership, in a second. It can truthfully be said that my right hon. Friend put great energy and commitment into modernising the House and its procedures. Considerable progress was made—not always in a direction that everyone entirely agreed with, but anyone would accept that progress was made on rationalisation and modernisation.
  386
  I know of the caricatures attributed to me on the issue, but let me say that whatever reservations I had about certain aspects of it are as of nothing compared with the almost complete and blank refusal of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to enter the same century, far less the same intellectual framework, regarding modernisation. As he spoke, I had visions, as we sometimes do, of an airline stewardess making an announcement as the plane lands, "Welcome to the Conservative party. Please put your watches back 200 years." The robustness with which he opposed any change genuinely merits the name "Conservative" and he typifies in every way why the Conservative party is utterly incapable of governing in modern Britain, although I am the first to admit that it contains some of the great minds of the 18th century. However, it lacks a capacity to deal with some modern problems here in the House as well as outside. Even my predecessor would acknowledge that much remains to be done.
  Mr. Forth: Oh no.
  Dr. Reid: Much remains to be done, but not all of it inside the House and involving its procedures. A great deal needs to be done in relating the House collectively to our constituents and to the population outside, and we have much to do individually as Members of Parliament.
  David Winnick: I broadly support the reforms and there is undoubtedly a majority for them in the House, but will my right hon. Friend consider this point? If he is to be on the Modernisation Committee—I do not suppose that there is any doubt about that—will he consider with his colleagues the matter of Tuesdays? There is a strong argument for Tuesdays to have the same hours as Mondays. Also, if we are concerned about modernisation, we must consider the fact that letters to constituents cannot reach them until the following day unless they are posted before 6 o'clock. Surely that is quite disgraceful.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was drawing his remarks to a close. We are discussing the membership of the Modernisation Committee.
  Dr. Reid: I do not want in any way to display the complacency and arrogance involved in assuming that the motion will be passed either tonight or in the future, or that I will be elevated within the Committee. My hon. Friend, having made his point, will understand why I do not immediately address it. It would require an assumption of arrogance so to do.
  However the objections were presented, certain points were worthy of being raised and considered, although in a more balanced way than that used by my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Such balance was shown by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and, of course, by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Incidentally, I find it rather intriguing that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, having raised the spectre of a conspiracy to pack the Modernisation Committee not only with hacks such as me—I am not sure whether he

  387
  used that word, although I think he did—but with loyal friends such as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, immediately went on to say that the man who should really be on the Committee is the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who has been my pair here for 15 years. He would be regarded with even greater suspicion, no doubt, had that been known when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made his comments. I am afraid that if there is a conspiracy to pack the Committee with my friends and intimates, the right hon. Gentleman was this evening part of it, although perhaps inadvertently.
  Let me deal with the two questions that Members have raised. The first is whether I have tabled a motion that would make me a member of the Committee and whether that Committee would be free to choose its own Chair. The answer to both questions is yes.
  I have no great ambition. I am not driven by any agenda. I shall become a member of the Committee if the House so wishes, but like any other MP I shall be at the service of the House and its Committees should they decide to elevate me to the chairmanship. I am content to await the decision of my colleagues.
  The second question was this: is it not wrong for a Select Committee, particularly one established to consider how best to modernise the procedures of the House, to be chaired by a Minister?
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has used a very unfortunate phrase, namely "to modernise the procedures of the House". I believe that that responsibility lies with the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour to chair. May I ask whether, if the House appoints the right hon. Gentleman to the Modernisation Committee and if he ends up as Chairman because of the Labour majority on it, he will seek to work closely with the Procedure Committee, and will not try to take to the Modernisation Committee responsibilities and duties which—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is going on rather long, and is perhaps a little wide of the motion.
  Dr. Reid: Having cunningly caught the hon. Gentleman's eye by using the word "procedures", I can assure him that I would indeed seek to do that. I have no doubt that he would seek to reinforce his own view that procedures should be a matter for the Procedure Committee, and that other matters should be dealt with by the Modernisation Committee. I am sure that that will provide substance for many discussions in future. I would not dream for a moment of going beyond usurping control of the Modernisation Committee—of which I already stand accused—to usurp the hon. Gentleman's role and try to dominate the Procedure Committee. That unfortunate implication arose from the way in which I described the Modernisation Committee.
  I was dealing with the second question—whether it was contrary to any reasonable way of approaching the chairmanship, or indeed membership, of the Committee
  388
  to give either to a Minister. On the contrary, I do not think such action would constitute a sign of any diminution of the Committee's importance in the eyes of the Government, or of their commitment to its work. If anything, the decision to allow the Leader of the House to become a member and subsequently Chairman—which was, in fact, incorporated in the Labour party manifesto when we came to power—was a public and practical indication of the importance that we attributed to that work. The membership of someone in the Cabinet would show how seriously the Government took its deliberations.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly pointed out that the Leader of the House—myself, for the time being—is a member of the Executive, and of course there is tension between the Executive and Parliament. He must also recognise, however, that the role of the Leader of the House is rather unusual. An obligation is placed on him not just to represent the Government in the House but, in a way, to carry the House's sense of responsibility into Government. The tension that that produces is epitomised in some respects by the tension between Executive and legislature. That does not mean to say that, despite those tensions, there is an incompatibility between the two arenas that does not benefit, on occasion, from a dovetailing or cross-representation. I hope that, as Leader of the House, I can do that in general, and specifically as a member of the Modernisation Committee. If asked honestly whether I will have regard to the burden of work on Ministers, I can answer yes, just as I will have regard to Ministers' obligation to be accountable to this House. I do not deny that there is a tension in that, too, but in principle or in absolute terms, it is not necessarily incompatible to combine both; nor does doing so constitute a precedent in itself.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is addressing these matters in a very sensible manner. However, will he give serious thought to the desirability of replacing this Committee with one of the sort that I mentioned, to which he, as Leader of the House, would be answerable, in the same way as his Cabinet colleagues are answerable to the other Select Committees?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that despite their desire to widen this debate, it is about the membership of the Committee.
  Dr. Reid: I respect your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. In any case, if ideas exist about modernising the relationship between the Executive and Parliament in such a fashion, the very body that would consider them would be the Modernisation Committee. Were I to be a member of it, I would of course be obliged to give consideration to them, and I would do so with as open and objective a mind as possible, recognising the prejudices that are forced on me because of my position. There is no one in this House who does not pre-judge—we all bring preconceptions to any consideration that we give—but the most dangerous people are those who do not know that they bring prejudices and preconceptions. I hope that that is in some way reassuring to all Members present.

  389
  The point was also made, with which I completely disagree, that all of this would be more properly dealt with if we were debating the establishment of a Committee. The real objection here is to the type of Committee that I will be on, if the House so wills, not to my being on it. That may well be a legitimate view, but that issue has already been agreed on and, as I understand it, it is not for discussion this evening.
  The question of other Select Committees approaching decisions with unanimity, consensus and collectivity was also mentioned. Despite what is sometimes said, that would be my style and wish. That was certainly my approach on the other Committees on which I served—not least the Committee dealing with armed forces legislation, on which I served for several years. I think that I am correct in saying that, under the previous Leader of the House, the decisions taken and the proposals made were unanimous—so I do not think that there is such a great distinction between the deliberations of the Modernisation Committee and of other ones.
  I pointed out that a balance of duty is incumbent on the Leader of the House. The views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are sincerely and passionately held and within the framework of his ideological preconceptions, commitments and passions. Everything he has said this evening is utterly consistent with the view that we expect from him, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely share it. Nor do I think that his views on the Modernisation Committee will be widely shared in the House. There will be a constituency for them, consisting of the arch-traditionalist viewpoint, and there is nothing wrong with that. I recognise that a sense of security, comfort and stability derives from that viewpoint, but perhaps it is tinged by the extremist element of traditionalist view. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, who sees himself as a fairly radical reformer of conservatism, obviously does not agree, but he will not expect me to accept that his is the widely held view in the House.
  Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House concede that, in the context of the modernisation of the House, change is not necessarily synonymous with progress or improvement?
  Dr. Reid: Change is not synonymous with improvement and it is never easy. It was once said that nothing is more painful than the birth of a new idea, and that applies in the House and outside it. It is often difficult, particularly for people of more mature years, to accept change. I remember Bob Hughes, when he was the Member for Aberdeen, North, telling me a story about changing from the simple method of finance that we used to have. There were thrupenny bits, sixpences, 12 pennies in a pound—sorry, I mean 12 pennies in a shilling; I have got it right even though I am not a Minister in the Treasury—and 240 pence in the pound. We moved on to the dreadfully complex system of metrification with 100 pence to the pound. Bob Hughes was on an Aberdeen bus at that time—this is a true story—listening to two old ladies bemoaning the change that had been forced on them under the European system of metrification, as they put it. At the end of a
  390
  long critique of all the ills that had been imposed on them, one of the old ladies summed up the situation with a sigh by saying, "You would think that they'd wait at least until all the old folk had died out before bringing the new system in."
  I fully realise that change is never easy and that it does not necessarily mean that things will improve, but that does not mean that nothing can be improved upon, or that everything should be conserved as it has been for centuries. That, if I may say so, is the essence of conservatism, and it explains why Conservatives, by definition, find it difficult to live in today's world because it is different from yesterday's world. It also explains the astounding support over the past few years for the progressive party that sits on this side of the House.
  Precedent does exist for my proposal. There is precedent under the previous Conservative Administration for Ministers chairing important Committees of this House—although not the Modernisation Committee, of course. Although the questioning of the wisdom and rectitude of having a Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary on to the Modernisation Committee has been sincere, I hope that I have reassured some colleagues and that they will find it possible to support my proposal. I am pleased to have such unanimous support on the Government Benches, which has not been so evident recently, so I am particularly gratified about that this evening. I hope that hon. Members will find it acceptable for my membership to proceed, as incorporated in the resolution.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I permitted to speak? I understand that the debate can continue until 7 pm.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly unusual, and the hon. Member knows that it is not customary to speak after the Minister's winding-up speech. If he wishes to make a contribution, however, he may do so. I merely point out what is customary.
  6.3 pm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reprimand, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the House for not being present earlier. I was attending to other important duties outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Further to that point of order Madam Deputy Speaker, is it not a breach of procedure for a Member to enter the debate after the winding-up speech?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I was raising the question whether it was a breach of procedure—I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is keen to uphold procedure—to come into the debate after the Minister's winding-up speech.
  Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the House sits on Fridays, as colleagues who assiduously attend will know, is it not

  391
  perfectly normal for the Minister to decide at which stage of the debate he or she will intervene; and is it not even more normal for other hon. Members to speak after the Minister? I am not aware of any rule of the House that says that once the Minister has spoken, no one else may speak, particularly if an hour of parliamentary time is left unexpired.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the shadow Leader of the House that I did not say that it was inappropriate or procedurally wrong—merely that it was not the custom to speak after the Minister has wound up the debate. By all means, if he wishes to speak, I am happy to call Sir Nicholas Winterton.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I repeat that I accept your modest reprimand regarding the fact that I was not here for the beginning of the debate and that I wanted to speak after the Leader of the House. However, I want to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am a pragmatist. I believe fervently in the integrity of the House of Commons, and that the House's integrity and independence in dealing with the Executive needs to be improved. Because I am a pragmatist, I shall not oppose the motion. In fact, I proposed his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament.
  I realise that the Government have a substantial majority in the House. In the end, members of the Government decide what should happen in this place and, for that matter, who should chair Committees. I listened to the response given by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House. Certainly, we will look to the Leader of the House—in his anticipated capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to best represent the interests of the House of Commons in dealing with the Executive.
  I am Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which sits on the same day of the week as the Modernisation Committee. I shall not oppose the appointment of the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. His predecessor adjusted the Modernisation Committee's starting time to 3.45 pm on a Wednesday, to assist me in continuing to play a part as a member of that Committee. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his assurance that he will honour the position, tradition, duties and responsibilities of the Procedure Committee, of which I am Chairman, in his capacity as a member—and, I believe, in due course, as Chairman—of the Modernisation Committee.
  Mr. Swayne: That sounds like a job application.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I shall go further, here on the Floor of the House. I have not indicated as much to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr.
  392
  Swayne), but if it is thought appropriate by the Committee, I should be happy to propose the Leader of the House as Chairman—
  Mr. Swayne: Quisling!
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: It may annoy my hon. Friend, but the Committee exists to represent the best interests of hon. Members in dealing with the Government of the day. At some stage in the future, the Government will be a Conservative and Unionist Government.
  David Winnick: When?
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Shortly.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have enormous affection and regard for him, but it is a great pity that he should be making this speech without having listened to the powerful arguments from his colleagues among Conservative Members as to precisely why what he advocates should not happen.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I repeat that I am a pragmatist. I am well aware that the present Government will do what they perceive to be right, as long as they have the co-operation of Labour Members. I believe that they are likely to achieve that co-operation. It would seem to be rather stupid and naïve of Conservative Members to tell the Leader of the House that we oppose his appointment to the Modernisation Committee, as we know full well that he will be so appointed. Further, it would be infantile, irresponsible and stupid—and a total waste of time—to have a major debate in the Modernisation Committee next Wednesday to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Chairman of that Committee.
  I merely look to the right hon. Gentleman and hope that he recognises my commitment to the House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I am a Back Bencher. Apart from a short period he has been a Back Bencher for the overwhelming majority of his time in the House. I have been a Back Bencher for all the time that I have spent in the House; and for one reason—
  Mr. Bill Tynan: We know why.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that compliment. As I have said once or twice in this place, I was born with a mouth and I have been prepared to use it according to my judgment and experience.
  Although I have mixed views about a member of the Cabinet actually chairing the Committee, I am realistic enough to know that, in a few minutes' time, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill will be appointed to the Committee and that next Wednesday he will be appointed its Chairman. I want to work closely with him and his party colleagues on the Committee in the best interests of—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Another PPS for you, John
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever the merits of the possible Chair of the Committee, we should concentrate on its membership at this point.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker; but in order for the right hon. Member for

  393
  Hamilton, North and Bellshill to be Chairman, he has to be appointed to the Committee, which is what the debate is about. I look to the right hon. Gentleman to give the same commitment to the Modernisation Committee as his predecessor, and I hope that he will be prepared to work with the other members of the Committee in the best interests of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.

  PETITION

    Community Pharmacies
    6.11 pm
    Mr. George Stevenson: I wish to present a petition signed by about 8,000 of my constituents. It states that the proposals by the Office of Fair Trading for unrestricted opening of pharmacies for the dispensation of national health service prescriptions will have a serious and detrimental effect on those pharmacies and the communities they serve. The petition requests the House of Commons to urge the Government to reject those very damaging proposals at the earliest possible opportunity.
    The petition declares:
    That the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental impact on local pharmacies and their continued services to local communities.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for unrestricted opening of pharmacies.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Rail Links (Dover and the CTRL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise Dover's concerns about its rail links and about the channel tunnel rail link.
  Way back in 1987, during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill, I had the privilege of working as parliamentary agent on behalf of more than 10,000 people in east Kent who provided evidence or appeared before the Special Select Committee of both Houses to seek a fair deal for Dover and east Kent.
  I represented seafarers, whose jobs were threatened; port workers, whose futures were put in doubt; and other employees and employers in east Kent who were concerned about the impact of the channel tunnel on the local economy. Most of our deliberations were concerned with the provision of a high-speed rail link through Kent, which was the subject of later legislation. Even in 1987, however, we recognised that the building of a new railway would impose additional disruption, and would have an impact on local communities and give rise to years of blight.
  In the Select Committee, people from east Kent argued that the tunnel would destroy jobs on the ferries and that it would have other detrimental effects—and it did. However, we were assured that in the long run we would benefit from faster and better rail services, and that places such as Dover would enjoy vastly improved domestic services to the capital by virtue of the channel tunnel rail link.
  Sixteen years on, we are still seeking assurances that the channel tunnel rail link will properly benefit east Kent and, in particular, we are still pressing for the new high-speed rail link to reach Dover.
  During this once-in-a-lifetime chance to link one of the world's busiest capitals to the world's busiest ferry port, we are urging the Strategic Rail Authority and the Minister to ensure that Dover gets a fair deal.
  The special needs of Dover, Thanet and east Kent are now well known to Ministers and the House. Gone are the days when every constituency in Kent was represented by a Conservative MP and the scandal of east Kent's large patches of poverty and social deprivation were all swept under the carpet. Great strides have been made in recent years to improve the local economy. In my constituency, unemployment has been halved since 1997, and youth unemployment has been slashed by 93 per cent., but my hon. Friend the Minister will know that my part of Kent still has some of the most deprived wards in the country.
  The Government's regeneration funding, coupled with help for the former east Kent coalfields, has certainly made a positive difference and improved our prospects. Objective 2 and assisted area status have helped us to gain inward investment, but east Kent still looks forward to the time when it can rely on itself to pay its own way and to regenerate its own economy. It can do that only when its transport infrastructure is improved and when the present run-down, slow and inadequate rail services are radically improved.

  395
  Before being elected to the House, I chaired Dover district council's economic development committee, and whenever we managed to entice a would-be inward investor to reach out from London and visit our council, the word would go out to check how the visitor intended to travel and, if there were any risk of his coming by train, we would ensure that a car was provided. Those who did come by rail had to put up with slow, stop-and-start, slam-door trains, which were cold and dirty and took nearly two hours to rattle the 70 miles from London to Dover. Needless to say, those angry entrepreneurs had made their investment decisions long before they trundled into Priory station in Dover.
  Dover suffers from being a peripheral area. We are at the very edge of the United Kingdom, but we are at the very heart of the north-west economic corridor. We have become the gateway to mainland Europe, not just for Britain, but for the wider world. We are only 20 miles from Calais and 70 miles from London, but people can still cross the channel by ferry faster than they can travel to London in a train.
  The east Kent triangle strategic partnership, which is made up of local authorities and major employers in east Kent, such as the port of Dover and Pfizer, strongly supports the need to upgrade the transport links to east Kent and has responded positively to the SRA's consultation exercise. Those in the triangle strongly support the SRA's option 6, which would allow channel tunnel rail link trains to reach Canterbury, West on the north Kent line and Folkestone on the east Kent route. They also support the principle of extending those services to Ramsgate and Dover respectively.
  I am also pleased to support option 6, with extension to Ramsgate, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—who cannot be with us now—has shown himself more than capable of pressing that case, so I want to concentrate my remarks on the need to provide links to Dover, which Dover district council and its hard-working leader, Pete Wells, have been promoting so effectively.
  The SRA has been remitted by the Government
  "to achieve train services that will create a strong intercontinental link to increase trade and tourism in Britain."
  The Government's primary objectives for transport are stated as
  "contributing to the efficient economy and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations".
  Among the so-called over-arching objectives is the phrase:
  "to promote the integration of all forms of transport and land-use planning leading to a better, more efficient transport system."
  With those clear parameters agreed and put in place by Her Majesty's Government, how can the SRA or Ministers contemplate terminating the high-speed train link at Folkestone—six miles short of Dover, six miles short of the busiest ferry port in the world and six miles short of east Kent's two expanding cruise liner terminals? I have nothing against Folkestone, but it is well known as the last rail stop before Dover, it no longer has a working port, and only last week the owners put the whole harbour complex on the market.
  Our poor rail links are matched in part by our inadequate road connections. For more than 25 years, we have suffered the infamous truncated A2 dual
  396
  carriageway, one of the main routes to the port, which still stops nine miles short of Dover and narrows to a single track before reaching Dover's eastern docks. Will the Government really contemplate commissioning a high-speed rail service that also stops miles short of Dover? The question therefore is: why does the SRA not see the sense of running the CTRL to its natural terminus at Dover? In fairness, I think that it does: in my talks with it, it has been very helpful; it has made me aware of the cost constraints, of its wider responsibilities and of the huge expense of building the new high-speed trains. I believe, however, that it is close to accepting the economic and social case for running those trains to Dover, and close to being persuaded that there is a business case.
  We have made the SRA aware of the potential for passenger growth that would be provided by a direct high-speed rail service between London and Dover. For instance, Dover harbour board estimates that the 250,000 passengers per annum who currently use the train to connect to the ferries will nearly double by 2007, and that a further 160,000 cruise liner passengers a year would be expected to switch to rail were the service up to par. At present, the cruise liner companies bring their passengers to Dover from London using luxury coaches or fleets of executive cars—anything to avoid subjecting their customers to the negative experience of travelling with Connex South East in Kent.
  What therefore stands in the way of linking the CTRL to Dover? The main barrier to tapping into all these economic opportunities—I accept that it is a problem—is the space constraint at Shakespeare tunnel between Folkestone and Dover. It has long been known that that single-bore tunnel is not wide enough to allow safe evacuation of passengers through the normal side doors. The conventional trains now in service meet the safety requirements by having front and rear doors but, as yet, we have not persuaded the SRA to fit emergency front and rear doors to the new fleet of high-speed tunnel trains. I welcome its confirmation that it is actively investigating the feasibility of fitting front and rear doors, and that it is looking at other remedies such as partially widening the tunnel or providing an emergency shunting vehicle to aid evacuation in cases of emergency.
  The remit of extending the new high-speed rail units to domestic destinations in Kent includes the provisos that the system should be flexible, adaptable and future-proof, and that it should be sustainable for at least 40 years. Clearly, a high-speed train unit that cannot safely go through the Shakespeare tunnel, and a high-speed rail service that stops six miles short of Dover, is neither flexible, adaptable nor future-proof, and would seem to fall short of all the Government's aspirations for providing a fast, efficient, integrated transport system.
  To conclude, my plea to the Minister tonight is that he demonstrate to the SRA that the political will exists to find a remedy to the restrictions of Shakespeare tunnel and that he will not allow a relatively small engineering problem to stand in the way of large strategic gains for Dover, all of east Kent, and, indeed, all of the United Kingdom.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful that, owing to the Adjournment debate's early start and the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), I have the opportunity to say a few words.
  I want to support my hon. Friend in his efforts and his quest to achieve better rail links with Dover. I do so because this is not just a problem for Dover: the rail links to east and south-east Kent, and all along the coast, are simply abysmal. The links to London, as he said, take far too long. Indeed, I understand that it takes longer for the ordinary train to travel from London to Dover or from London to Hastings, in which I am more interested, than it does to travel to Bristol—a journey that is twice as long. Clearly, the links are inadequate.
  I want to add to my hon. Friend's argument the fact that it is not just the links from Dover and east Kent to London that are deficient. The important links along the south coast are also inadequate. There is no adequate provision from Dover and east Kent to any other part of the south of England. In particular, the line from Hastings to Ashford is single track that is operated by 40-year-old diesel trains. That journey takes far too long. That disadvantages the economy of my hon. Friend's constituency and the south coast in two ways: journeys take too long and people find the services inadequate. Although the diesels are soon to be renewed, the lines also need to be improved.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will have on his desk or on the desk of the Secretary of State a report from the south coast multi-modal study that shows how important it is to upgrade the lines in this area, particularly the south coast link, so as to provide a more adequate service. The dualling of the line is important to the well-being of south coast towns, including Dover and Hastings.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully the report of the south coast multi-modal study. It will not only assist my hon. Friend the Member for Dover to find better links along the south coast for his constituency, but will help my constituency and others so that we can have a true south coast express line that will have the important added benefit of taking the clutter out of London. If people from Dover want to travel to any part of the south coast, they must go into London and back out. That is nonsense, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure not only me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but others who want improvements to the rail service in this part of the world.
  6.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on securing the debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail links to Dover and the channel tunnel rail link. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has presented his case in the usual considered and powerful manner that he uses to speak on behalf of his constituents. I certainly recognise some of the difficulties of peripherality that he has mentioned. Some not too far from my constituency would reflect similar views to his.
  398
  Before I respond to the main issues raised by my hon. Friend, it might be helpful if I provide the House with background to the CTRL and where we are with the project. The CTRL is the first major new railway to be built in the UK in more than a century. As one of the most important infrastructure projects currently being taken forward as part of the Government's public-private partnership programme, with a projected cost of £5.2 billion, the line will provide 109 km, or 68 miles, of high-speed link between the channel tunnel at Cheriton in Kent and London St. Pancras. It will contribute towards meeting the growing demand for railway capacity in the south-east, reduce international and some domestic journey times to and from London, and contribute to the important economic regeneration in the Thames gateway to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Section one of the CTRL, stretching from the channel tunnel to Fawkham junction in north Kent, is now 94 per cent. complete, on budget and set to open as planned in September this year. The major civil engineering works for section two, extending from Southfleet in north Kent to St. Pancras in London began in July 2001 and are now 42 per cent. complete. The entire CTRL will be completed in 2007.
  Many destinations have been considered in the course of developing train service options. The aim in doing so has been to identify those destinations that can be served without major expenditure on infrastructure and where the improvements in journey time combine with optimum revenue gains. In that way, the rail network will benefit as a whole.
  As my hon. Friend will know, the Strategic Rail Authority published a consultation document in February 2003. The document set out six generic service options: the core route that has the principal destinations of St. Pancras, Gravesend, Ashford, Canterbury West and Folkestone Central; and five other service options that build incrementally on that. The authority is currently working with Network Rail and Medway council on the implications of providing additional CTRL domestic services to the Medway towns and beyond, which will be presented as further potential service options.
  The formal consultation period concluded on 15 April. As part of the consultation process, the Strategic Rail Authority held meetings in Ashford and London, met Members of Parliament individually and in groups, and received numerous written representations. It is deliberating on all the representations received before it presents its proposition to the Secretary of State in early June so that he may make a decision. The proposition will be based on an operationally feasible service solution and considerations of value for money and affordability, while recognising the contribution that the services will make to wider regeneration objectives.
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced on 11 December 2002 that agreement had been reached on terminating Connex's south-eastern franchise in 2006, which was five years early. The agreement facilitates the continuation of Connex's efforts to improve punctuality, ensures delivery of the programme to replace slam-door trains, and opens the door for the introduction of an integrated Kent franchise from 2007. The new franchise will operate both high-speed

  399
  domestic services on the CTRL and services on the south-eastern network based on Connex's existing portfolio of services. The competitive process to let the new franchise is expected to commence early next year. The franchise will be let following open competition in which companies, including Connex, will be able to bid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover, as always, made an eloquent case for CTRL services to be extended to Dover. He is pragmatic, sensible and realistic and his speech recognised some of the considerable problems that must be overcome. We cannot underestimate those difficulties in any way.
  Two routes have been considered: via Canterbury and via Folkestone West. Provision of an additional platform at Dover for trains of 240 m in length would be required for either route. Dover station's location between two tunnels also imposes severe constraints. The appraisal shows that operating services to Dover using either route will offer less value for money and be less affordable than the core service option. The route via Canterbury would require the route mileage to be extended by approximately 53 miles beyond Gravesend, which would thus increase overall journey times. Operational costs would also increase, such as track access charges and costs for train crew and rolling stock maintenance. Signalling and traction power enhancements to the route would be necessary between Faversham and Dover, although some of that work might be done as part of the mark 1 traction power upgrade and Kent re-signalling projects.
  Extending services to Dover from Folkestone would result in an additional route mileage of approximately 7 miles and marginally increased operational costs. However, as my hon. Friend said, the primary issue is evacuation from the new rolling stock required for CTRL domestic services in the event of an emergency in the Shakespeare tunnels. Either the rolling stock or the tunnels will require modification to allow safe operation.
  My hon. Friend will know that the Shakespeare tunnels are single bore and, although only 1 mile in length, they are extremely narrow and prevent people getting out of the side doors in the event of an emergency. Existing rolling stock that uses the tunnels allows passengers to pass through the length of the trains and exit from either end. That will not be possible with the new rolling stock because it requires aerodynamic nose cones to operate at high speed, which will prevent the inclusion of interconnecting gangways between units. Even if escape hatches could be designed in the ends of the new trains, they would not allow people to move from one unit to another as quickly or easily as they can on existing rolling stock. Her Majesty's rail inspectorate said that that situation would be unacceptable, but it may accept side access in an emergency provided that a safe method of working can be identified.
  The Strategic Rail Authority's project team continues to explore ways of resolving that problem. If a satisfactory solution can be identified, direct services to Dover could be considered. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend depend on the appraisal of that matter. If it is not feasible to serve Dover directly by the channel tunnel rail link domestic services, the provision of an effective interchange at Folkestone Central will be examined as part of the timetable development process.
  400
  The objective of that would be to operate services from Dover that interchange with the high-speed line at Folkestone Central.
  All south-eastern services in Kent and East Sussex are to be reviewed as part of the timetable development process for the new integrated Kent franchise. That will ensure that the optimal service pattern is achieved for the region as a whole and that opportunities for connections from the existing network to the channel tunnel rail link domestic services are maximised. The process will also ensure that any capacity released on the classic rail network is fully exploited. Optimisation of the timetable in Kent in that way will result in some significant journey time improvements elsewhere on the network.
  Existing trains will be unable to work on the channel tunnel rail link because of the different power supply, speed requirements and signalling systems. So the train fleet needs to be specially designed and built. Service extensions would further add to the cost without producing a corresponding increase in benefit. The trains will need to be much more powerful than current Kent commuter trains, which travel at speeds of 100 mph or less. They will need to accelerate rapidly and maintain a top speed of at least 125 mph. The rolling stock procurement process started in January and is necessary if we are to ensure that sufficient units are available to commence services from 2007.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned the links to his constituency. He, too, has been an assiduous voice on behalf of his constituency and has raised many matters with us, including electrification to Hastings. The costs of that are extremely high and probably prohibitively expensive. However, GoVia, which runs the Hastings-Ashford franchise, is considering how to provide better services, such as improving connections and services to Ashford so that they join the channel tunnel rail link. I shall be happy for my hon. Friend to drop me a line if he wants to discuss that further. I appreciate that it is important for his constituency and I know that inward investment and modernisation are on his agenda and on the agenda locally.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friends' representations. The consultation process, which generated a constructive and positive response, has finished and the responses are being evaluated. We must wait and see what the Strategic Rail Authority proposes in order for the Secretary of State to make his direction. We must remember that the priorities for the south-east are to provide a safe, reliable railway and to meet the growing demand for rail transport while reducing the levels of London overcrowding. Safety and regulatory requirements take precedence. These issues are being tackled immediately, while the channel tunnel rail link domestic services are developed, and they include completion of the installation programme for the train protection warning system, the replacement of the large fleet of Mark 1 slam-door trains that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover described so graphically, and the power supply upgrade.
  Whatever the outcome of the consultation process, the intention is to include mechanisms within the contractual arrangements for the integrated Kent

  401
  franchise that will allow possible future development of the channel tunnel rail link domestic services in Kent, as demand and opportunities develop.
  This has been a useful debate, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who I know speaks powerfully for his constituents not just on transport, as
  402
  he did this evening, but on many other issues. If there are matters that have not been covered in the debate and which he wants to pursue with me, I shall be pleased to do so through correspondence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOE BENTON in the Chair]

Aggravated Dangerous Driving
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mr. Denis Murphy: I am grateful to the House for allowing me this debate. I intend to cover a range of issues relating to aggravated dangerous driving. I shall focus on the tragic death of Rebecca Sawyer and call for a number of changes to laws relating to motoring offences.
The tragic events of the last new year's eve caused shock and revulsion throughout the United Kingdom. At 10.44 pm on Tuesday 31 December 2002, in Ashington in Northumberland, Mr. Steven Sawyer was driving his two children home after they had spent an evening at their grandparents' house. Mr. Sawyer was driving the family motor car south on Hawthorn road, towards the traffic light junction with College road and Sixth avenue, in an area with a 30 mph speed limit. Rebecca Sawyer, aged six, was strapped in the rear of the vehicle next to her younger sister, Kirsty, who was secured in a child seat. At the same time, a stolen Vauxhall Astra, driven by Ian David Carr, was travelling west at high speed towards the same traffic light, which all witnesses confirm was on red as he approached it.
Ian Carr had three passengers in the stolen vehicle, two men and a woman. The stolen Vauxhall Astra sped through the red light, crashing into the Sawyer family's car, with horrific consequences. The three members of the Sawyer family were seriously injured and taken to Wansbeck general hospital, where, tragically, Rebecca Sawyer died at 5 past 12 on 1 January 2003. Kirsty suffered critical injuries and had to be transferred to Newcastle general hospital's intensive care unit.
What of the fate of the driver and passengers in the offending vehicle? Eye-witnesses stated that after the collision the offending vehicle eventually stopped on the footpath directly outside an Asian-run shop. As soon as the car stopped, a male, described as tall and slim, was seen getting out of the driver's seat. That person ran off immediately and did not return to the scene. Shortly afterwards, the rear offside passenger door opened. A male and female left the car. The male ran off first, quickly followed by the female.
Ian Carr made no attempt even to check whether his passengers were injured, let alone to seek help for the terrible injuries he had caused. He did what he has always done: he ran away—a callous, cowardly act. Carr then went into hiding. Two of the three passengers gave themselves up to the police the next day, the third having been arrested near the scene. The three passengers showed the same total disregard for human life that Carr did. They made no attempt to offer assistance and must bear a heavy responsibility for leaving the scene of a serious crime without offering any help. Those were not the actions of innocent people.
74WH
At 4.57 pm on Tuesday 2 January 2003, Carr was traced and arrested at an address in Lynemouth, Northumberland, by a Northumbria police motor patrol and was taken to Bedlington police station. He was later interviewed in the presence of a solicitor, and confirmed that he was the driver at the time of the collision. Carr was described by the officers who interviewed him as showing no regret for the death of Rebecca or for the serious injuries that he had caused. He was described as being completely without remorse or compassion.
Carr had 89 previous convictions. One of his offences was committed on 14 October 1990. An Austin Metro car was stolen in Ashington. It was involved in high-speed races with another stolen vehicle. The Metro overturned at Woodhorn crossroads in Ashington while travelling at 90 mph. One of the passengers, Mark Wren, was flung from the vehicle and suffered serious head injuries. In all probability, he was killed outright. The driver of the vehicle tried to get Mr. Wren from the scene, but that was not possible, and he left Mark's body draped over a fence at the roadside before running away.
The driver then asked the other passengers to provide an alibi by saying that the deceased was the driver of the stolen vehicle. In fact, Ian Carr was the driver, and he was charged and convicted at Newcastle Crown court, and sentenced to 12 months youth custody for causing death by reckless driving, the maximum sentence permitted because of his age. Carr was described as arrogant, callous and uncaring. He showed absolutely no remorse. His only thoughts were for himself, which was exactly how he was described before he was sentenced for his latest terrible crime.
In passing sentence for that crime this year, the judge stated:

"The circumstances of this offence in which you caused the death of a much loved little girl, inflicted critical injuries to her baby sister and caused less serious injuries to her father have torn at the hearts of people throughout this region and indeed further afield as well.

Nothing I can say can begin to adequately describe the revulsion that the community feels at what you have done. Everyone is understandably appalled."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Joe Benton): Order. I wish to make a point at this stage. I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I am listening carefully and with deep interest to the debate. What I am about to say is intended in a general sense for all contributors. Will hon. Members please bear it in mind that, if any matter is sub judice in any shape or form, I warn against their referring to it. I do not know whether the matters under discussion are still sub judice, but I think it as well to warn the House to refrain from referring to any matter that might be.
Mr. Murphy: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matters to which I am referring are not sub judice. I checked on that before I decided to use names. We are on fairly safe ground.
The judge was absolutely right. The community of Ashington and the north-east region was horrified that Ian Carr had once again caused death and destroyed a decent, loving family. Everyone in the north-east demanded action. It is a credit to our excellent regional

75WH
newspapers, the Evening Chronicle and The Journal, that they decided to run high-profile campaigns to make people in the region aware of the case. They collected tens of thousands of signatures in support of a petition to be presented to the Home Secretary calling for changes to the law for criminal motorists.
Since the tragic events of new year's eve, I have had numerous meetings with Superintendent Bob Pattinson of Northumbria Police, an experienced and dedicated officer. Many of the recommendations that I will put before the House today were suggested by him and are based on actual offences and sentences. I am grateful for his help, his skill and professionalism. I record my thanks on behalf of the good people of Wansbeck to him and all his colleagues. Everyone to whom I have spoken, including the Sawyer family, have placed great value on their help.
Carr received nine and a half years in prison for his string of offences. As he was on licence at the time of the offence, he had to serve the rest of his previous term: 668 days—the maximum sentence that the judge could give. That brings me to my first recommendation. A new offence of aggravated death by dangerous driving should be introduced, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The aggravating factors would include, but not necessarily be limited to, driving while already disqualified, failing to stop for the police, driving under the influence of drink and/or drugs, having no insurance, driving a stolen motor vehicle, or driving a class of vehicle for which no licence has ever been held.
People such as Carr will continue to pose a threat to the public. A life sentence would reflect the terrible nature of their crime and ensure that they will be monitored after release for the rest of their lives. The probation service and police would have to be informed before anyone was released on licence, and would be involved in monitoring them. Offenders such as Carr should never be released until the appropriate authorities are satisfied that they no longer pose a threat to the general public. Her Majesty's Prison Service should be required to notify police of people identified as posing a risk to the public before they are released, even if they have received a lesser sentence.
There is a serious anomaly in the present sentencing policy where serious injury has occurred, rather than death. The maximum sentence for that is only two years. Nationally, there are thousands of cases of persons who have been seriously injured—some disabled for life—and who are very bitter that the people who caused their injuries serve only two years. If two motorists have a disagreement and one strikes the other, the guilty person can be charged with assault causing actual bodily harm and could be sentenced to five years in prison. If a driver deliberately or recklessly damages another driver's motor vehicle and is charged with criminal damage, a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment is available to the Crown courts. It is essential that the period of imprisonment for the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving is increased substantially beyond two years, especially if aggravating factors are involved.
76WH
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to draw up new advice to the courts, in consultation with the Home Office, for sentencing those who are repeatedly convicted of driving while disqualified. I have been provided with many examples that demonstrate that far too many people consistently re-offend and that there appears to be no effective deterrent. Absolute and conditional discharges seem commonplace. If we are determined to make our roads safer for the public to use, there must be an active deterrent to prevent people from getting behind the wheel without any regard for the law. Consideration should be given to introducing a mandatory jail sentence for anyone who drives while disqualified, as that is a serious offence.
Ian Carr carried three passengers in the offending vehicle. They were not charged with any offence. The Crown Prosecution Service stated

"that there is no direct, reliable evidence to show that the passengers definitely knew that Carr was driving a stolen vehicle".

The three passengers were well known to the police as all of them had serious criminal records. They knew Carr well, and they were aware that he was a dangerous serial offender. They all initially lied to the police, denying the driver's identity. Given all that and the seriousness of the crime the CPS should have prosecuted, in the public interest.
I am concerned that no power of arrest for dangerous driving exists, and I urge the Minister to consider making dangerous driving an arrestable offence.
A number of other issues are associated with repeat offenders, and I would like the Minister to consider them. There is a need to crack down hard on the use of pool cars by criminal groups or young joyriders. Pool cars are not registered in anyone's name, are not insured and are usually in a poor state of repair. They are kept for use when required. Given that most police officers are aware of the criminal records of the offenders on their patch, there should be a deliberate enforcement process to remove those vehicles from the streets and to have them crushed.
I also suggest that, in order to keep that type of vehicle off the street, the Minister should consider banning the resale of scrapped vehicles. It is possible for someone to go to any scrapyard in the land, buy a large, powerful car without having to show either a driving licence or proof of insurance, and drive the vehicle off the premises. That can be done for less than £200. The cost of insuring the car could be several thousand pounds, so no one should be surprised that that type of vehicle is never insured, although it is exactly the type of vehicle that becomes pooled. It is essential that that practice be stopped.
Another self-inflicted problem seems to be the disposal costs, or recycling costs, of motor vehicles. A cost will undoubtedly be associated with any scheme, but whatever it is, it must be charged to the new vehicle. If it is not, hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles, will have their identification removed and be left to rot. It is inconceivable that the last person to own a motor car legally, who probably bought it as a cheap run-around, will drive it to the scrapyard and hand over a wad of cash amounting to more than he paid for it in the first place just to ensure that it is disposed of correctly. I have a genuine fear that unless there is an incentive to dispose of vehicles properly, many will be left with their keys in

77WH
to create new hazards in areas ill equipped to deal with them. I suggest that the Minister should seriously consider offering a payment to people who dispose of their motor vehicles legitimately.
The issues that I have dealt with have related mainly to serious motoring offences of a criminal nature. Research recently conducted by Northumbria police showed that of 61 fatal crashes in the past year, eight involved disqualified drivers, who caused eight deaths. All the disqualified drivers were young, and all had a long history of offending. I shall briefly run through the careers of two of them—man A and man B.
Man A is 25 and first appeared in court at the age of 13. He has subsequently been convicted a further 37 times for more than 190 separate offences. The majority of his offences are vehicle related: 42 were for taking vehicles without consent, 17 of which were aggravated by involving police chases; and 31 were for driving while disqualified. Yet the maximum sentence imposed was only 15 months.
Man B is 35, and he first appeared in court when he was 15. He has been convicted many times for a variety of offences. Three were for driving while disqualified, 23 for having no driving licence, 35 for having no insurance, 25 for theft, and nine for absconding. He is currently subject to six outstanding periods of disqualification.
All the other individuals involved had similar records. From checking through the records of 30 motorists who received driving bans, I can say that more than half were already banned from driving at the time of their offence. Half committed one or more offence after the ban, with some appearing in court six more times for serious motoring offences. That cannot be allowed to continue.
I am aware of the wider debate on accident reduction and general road safety. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has produced an excellent document, "Road Traffic Law and Enforcement: A Driving Force for Casualty Reduction", which contains several recommendations that would certainly help in casualty reduction. It identifies a number of issues that would help to make Britain's roads much safer: there should be better publicity about the risks and consequences of committing road traffic offences; only specially trained magistrates should handle road traffic cases; with regard to roadside enforcement, police should have full access to information about both drivers and vehicles; carrying driving licences should be compulsory; the Government should appoint a named body or individual to progress more actively the use of new technology by all road traffic law enforcement agencies; and vehicle technology to prevent law breaking should be developed. The council also advised that bad driving offences, especially those involving death, are often not dealt with in a manner that signals to society that they are serious.
The appropriate agencies need to review their procedures so that a more effective response to bad driving is achieved. If that does not work, a new offence of causing death by bad driving should be introduced. That is exactly what I am suggesting to the House this morning.
I have covered a number of issues relating to death and serious injuries caused by aggravated dangerous driving. I have put forward reasonable additions and
78WH
amendments to the current laws, most of which, I am sure, will have the full support of the House. I am grateful for the all-party support that I have received to date, and for the interest shown in today's debate.
Our roads are some of the most congested in the world, yet our road safety record is one of the best. Standards of driving in the United Kingdom are generally high, but still the lives of thousands of people are blighted by criminal motorists with no respect for the law, property, or even human life. It is possible to identify from an early age those who will pursue that type of life, and much more work needs to be done on prevention. We need to send the clear message that society will not tolerate people who use a motor vehicle to maim or kill.
Steven Sawyer should have had the right to drive his children home safely to their mother, Sharon, on the fateful evening of 31 December, without fear of a dangerous maniac killing their innocent little girl, Rebecca, critically injuring Kirsty, and wrecking their lives. Carr should never have been out on licence in the first place. He should be locked away for the rest of his natural life, or at least until he and people like him no longer pose a threat to society. Never again will the Sawyer family have the joy of looking forward to Christmas. The tragic events of that terrible night will haunt them forever.
I pay tribute to the brave and dignified way in which Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer have acted. In a moving statement during the trial, Mr. Sawyer described the grievous loss that his family had sustained in Rebecca's death, and concluded:

"Whatever sentence the person responsible gets will never ever be anywhere near the sentence me and my family will suffer".

It is essential that we change the law to ensure that no more families suffer the same fate as the Sawyers.
9.51 am
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing this important debate. I—like almost every Member of the House, I suspect—agree with every word he said. Almost all of us could relate a similar incident that occurred in our constituency, and I am no exception.
Everyone has great sympathy for those who are killed or maimed by motorists and for their families, but it is difficult to appreciate the immense frustration and distress experienced by those affected when the motorists concerned are clearly guilty of more than a temporary lapse. That is what two of my constituents are experiencing. Like my hon. Friend, I will relate an incident in my constituency: it concerns Mr. and Mrs. Briggs and what they encountered following the dreadful death of their daughter Susan.
Susan Briggs was 30 years old. She and her two friends, Angela Ovington and Victoria Fisher, had their whole lives ahead of them, but had them murderously—I use that word carefully, but most sincerely—snatched away by the reprehensible actions of a self-absorbed drunk driver. Susan and her friends were returning to their new house in Huddersfield after a night out when a car mounted the pavement, hit a wall and drove up the pavement, ploughing into the girls and causing horrific fatal injuries. A fourth member of the group managed to scramble to safety and narrowly escaped.

79WH
The driver of the car was Allan Jackson. He tried to leave the scene but was stopped by the police: he was found to be three times over the drink-drive limit. Jackson had been caught driving while banned in the past and had previous convictions for drink-driving. Plainly, the punishment that he received for those offences did not provide the necessary deterrent, as is evident from the fact that he continued to drink and drive.
Jackson was initially charged with manslaughter, but that was reduced to causing death by dangerous driving because, on the advice of his solicitor, he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. For each person he killed—Angela, Susan and Victoria—he was sentenced to eight years in prison, a total of 24 years. However, the sentences ran concurrently, making a total of eight years' imprisonment for taking three innocent young lives. Those three people were not given the second chance previously afforded to Jackson, the motorist in question.
Although the judge recommended that Jackson should serve five years four months for the tragedy—in my view, that was a pathetic recommendation—he was downgraded to an open prison two years later, and after eighteen months he can apply to be let out on licence. Three innocent young women were killed and the guilty party could be out on the streets in less than four years—four years for murdering three young women, after which he will be free to do that again.
While I was writing this speech yesterday, my assistant asked if she could tell me about an incident in her family. She told me that her niece, while a back-seat passenger, was killed in an horrific car accident shortly after her 18th birthday—I believe that it was last year. The driver was subsequently charged with driving without due care and attention and fined £200. The victim's mother was recently stopped by the police and fined £60 for allegedly—she denied the charge—driving through an amber light. I am sure that all hon. Members can appreciate her views on the fairness of the system: a £200 fine for the motorist who killed her daughter and a £60 fine for her for allegedly driving through an amber light.
I support the view that sentences imposed are not tough enough. Evidence suggests that they do not deter people from repeating offences that can have tragic consequences. The issue must be addressed or we will continue to see the appalling and heartbreaking cases that regularly appear in the media when thoroughly decent, law-abiding citizens mourn loved ones who have been killed by criminal motorists.
Mr. Alan Campbell: What signal does my hon. Friend believe is sent out by a constituency case of mine in which an elderly gentleman going about his business was killed in a hit-and-run incident? The driver of the vehicle was sentenced to five years in prison, but was considered for release after serving less than 18 months.
Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend substantiates my points. The fact is that present sentencing policy and the law are not adequate. Something must be done or such
80WH
cases will continue to arise. They will not stop simply because the law and sentencing policy are changed, but surely there will be a greater deterrent effect than at present.
Under the charge of driving without due care and attention—the charge faced by most drivers who kill or maim on the road—any death or injury is considered to be a

"tragic but disproportionate consequence of a minor driving error".

Magistrates say that under that charge they cannot take account of any fatality or injury but must consider only the driving error itself. In other words, a motorist who kills an innocent party through negligent driving can be sentenced only for that driving and not for the death that results from it. As a result, the death or injury is sometimes not even mentioned by the prosecution in court, and when it is mentioned, defence lawyers and magistrates labour the point that it can have no influence on the sentence passed. The charge carries a maximum fine of £2,500 and a driving ban, but drivers who are guilty of killing or seriously injuring someone on the road are routinely fined around £250 with a few penalty points thrown in for good measure.
A charge of driving without due care and attention must be made against a negligent driver within six months of a crash—I shall return to that point. The bereaved and injured often find the obscenely lenient sentence and the fact that the death or injury is not the central issue of the trial the most distressing aspect of post-crash legal proceedings. To put the charge in context, were the police to prosecute the driver of a vehicle that collided with another in a supermarket car park, they would use the careless driving charge. That just shows how ridiculous the situation is.
The law should be changed so that a more appropriate charge—manslaughter or assault—is brought against all drivers whose negligence results in the death or injury of another road user. Such a charge would address the death or injury as the central issue of the trial, as befits the seriousness of the offence. Even a charge of vehicle homicide should be considered.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have had the same sort of experience in my constituency, in a case involving a young lad. The Fisher family lost their son in a hit-and-run incident. When the case got to court, the driver was prosecuted and the same old sentence was dished out. After the court case, it was discovered that the driver had been smoking cannabis before he hit the lad, but the police never took that into consideration. No wonder people get light sentences if such things are not taken into consideration,.
Mr. Steinberg: Every Member of Parliament could give an example of a constituent who has suffered because of the appalling attitude and performance of some drivers—it is difficult not to be rude when describing such people. My hon. Friend has described another incident of someone basically getting away with murder.
The charge of causing death by dangerous driving is the more serious of the two charges, but it is seldom brought, because of the burden of proof. The charge, together with that of causing death by careless driving

81WH
while under the influence of drink or drugs and that of causing death by aggravated vehicle taking carries a maximum sentence of only 10 years' imprisonment and a driving ban. Unlike the charge of driving without due care and attention, which is heard in the magistrates court, such charges are heard in the Crown court, before a jury.
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are reluctant to use the charge of causing death by dangerous driving even when there is clear evidence that a driver has been driving dangerously prior to a fatal crash. Falling asleep at the wheel, speeding, overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic, going through red lights and ignoring pedestrian crossings do not usually, in the eyes of the authorities, constitute dangerous driving.
Most drivers who kill on the road should be charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Sometimes, under pressure from bereaved relatives, the charge of driving without due care and attention is upgraded to that of causing death by dangerous driving, but if that is done, the alternative charge of driving without due care and attention should not be left off the charge sheet. There have been instances in which drivers found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have escaped any censure because the alternative, lesser charge, on which the prosecution should have fallen back, has not been included on the charge sheet. There is no time limit for laying the charge of death by dangerous driving, but if the authorities change their minds about the charge after six months have elapsed, they cannot then lay the lesser charge of driving without due care and attention.
Police officers sometimes refer to a charge of reckless driving, even though that charge was scrapped in 1991. Both the police and the CPS talk about intent and claim that, because a driver who killed or maimed on the road did not have any intent to kill, they cannot press charges of causing death by dangerous driving. However, intent is not a requirement and has not been one since changes to road traffic legislation in 1991.
A comprehensive approach to road traffic law reform can deliver the necessary changes and should be urgently addressed in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now going through Parliament. As well as reforms to the current road traffic penalties, there must be reform that goes much further. Urgent change is needed in several other areas. When considering offences, we need to ensure that the fact of death or injury is a key point in criminal proceedings. There should be a variety of sentences based on the degree of culpability, including manslaughter. The courts must use the powers available to them: the low sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, the derisory fines for driving without due care and attention, and many other sentencing practices, cause a deep sense of injustice. The issue, therefore, is not only the penalties available, but the courts' use of them.
The Crown court should be the sole venue for cases of driving offences involving death or personal injury. Dangerous driving offences should be heard in the Crown court, not as mere summary offences in a magistrates court. The practice in magistrates courts of not mentioning and recording the fact of death is a disgrace and must stop immediately. The training of
82WH
CPS lawyers in traffic matters and the proper use of charges including manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm are very important.
The authorities are, I am afraid to say, frequently oblivious of and insensitive towards road victims. That is reflected in the conduct of proceedings, the weighing up of discretionary facts, such as inconvenience to the offender, and the language used in court, but there are many other examples. Victims face obstacles due to lack of information, and rights of appeal for victims' families in relation to serious road crash verdicts often appear to be applied unjustly, while offenders appear to be able to reduce their sentences on appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck made another point: the responsibilities of persons being carried in the offending vehicle should also be recognised when considering offences and, where appropriate, they too should be prosecuted.
I agree with my hon. Friend that when guilty persons are released, they should be electronically monitored until it is established that they no longer pose a threat to the general public. I asked a parliamentary question about the following point. In the year 2000, 359 cases of causing death by dangerous driving were brought to court. Of that number, 72 were charged with causing death by dangerous driving under the influence of drink or drugs and 34 were charged of causing death by aggravated vehicle taking. That is a total of 465 offences that each resulted in at least one death, and perhaps more, committed by motorists who have subsequently been charged with a motoring offence. In comparison, in 2000–01, there were 73 recorded homicide offences by shooting. The Government were very quick to take action at the beginning of the year on gun crimes—and rightly so—but they have not been so quick to take action on dangerous driving.
Since March 2001, I have met two Secretaries of State and a Minister of State to discuss the problems. I took Mr. and Mrs. Briggs with me on two occasions. Although there is no doubt that the Ministers were very sympathetic, no concrete proposals have been introduced. Innocent victims and their families continue to suffer, while action taken against guilty offenders is derisory, ineffective and provides no real deterrent. In other words, such people get away with murder.
10.8 am
Ross Cranston: As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, we all come across tragic cases, and we can only extend our sympathies to the parents and relatives of Rebecca Sawyer, whose case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). Such cases are tragedies, and people cannot understand how, when death is caused, the resulting sentence seems to trivialise the life that has been lost. There is a deep sense of grief and inadequacy among friends and victims as they have to confront the tragedy, and they feel a deep sense of hurt, which is often compounded by the way in which they are treated by the criminal justice system.
I certainly support what my hon. Friends have said about the need constantly to review the law, and I commend the work done by organisations such as RoadPeace, which has, over a period of years, put that important issue on to the political agenda. Nationwide,

83WH
the consequences are enormous. Some 3,500 people die each year as a result of traffic offences. More than 500,000 are injured, and more than 100,000 are seriously injured. Considering purely the economics, or the bottom line, the result is an enormous cost to the national health service.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will point out, this country's record compares well with that of other countries. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2000 of fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres travelled puts the United Kingdom at the bottom of the list for the number of road fatalities. Our figures were lower than those for comparable countries such as the United States, Australia and Germany. Nevertheless, our newspapers regularly report tragic cases in which life has been taken away but a fine of, for example, only £100 has been given. Politicians have a responsibility to address the issue.
As I said, we have a relatively good record in this country, but it seems that differences between countries have been flattening out. In fact, the number of fatal and serious injury road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom may be increasing. For the operational command unit in my part of the west midlands, the figure increased from 50 to 57 in the past year. Otherwise, the crime results are very satisfactory. Vehicle crime, burglary and other crimes are decreasing, but that increase stands out, although it is, admittedly, slight. Other areas in the west midlands have also seen an increase. The figures represent an enormous social problem involving shattered lives and individual tragedies.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck and for City of Durham said, there is a range of offences. The most serious is manslaughter, but there are very few prosecutions for that. The Crown Prosecution Service must take into account the likely success or otherwise of a prosecution, and it is reluctant to bring a manslaughter charge without a realistic prospect of conviction. Other offences are causing death by dangerous driving, which has a penalty of 10 years, dangerous driving with no death involved, although there could be serious injury, and careless driving. As a result of the North committee report in the late 1980s, there is now the additional offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck asked whether we should have an additional offence of aggravated dangerous driving causing death. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that, as well as other proposals for an intermediate offence between dangerous driving causing death and careless driving. Organisations such as RoadPeace have put forward strong arguments for a new offence of causing death by careless driving.
However, in our response to particular tragedies in our constituencies, it seems that we are concerned not so much with the offences but with sentences that seem lenient. The Government have announced that the penalties for road traffic offences causing death will increase from 10 to 14 years—perhaps the Minister can give us the timetable for that. It is a welcome step, but
84WH
many other penalties, some of which my hon. Friends mentioned, could be given serious consideration. For example, it strikes me as strange that someone who is stopped and found to be over the limit for alcohol is not immediately deprived of his or her licence. It is thought to be somehow contrary to the person's human rights that they should not retain the licence until they go to court.
From what my hon. Friends have said, it also seems that previous convictions, which will be admissible under the Criminal Justice Bill, will help in some prosecutions. As has been said, some offenders have very serious previous convictions. If those were put before a jury, prosecutions for manslaughter or causing death by dangerous driving would have a greater chance of success.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that in sentencing, a death that results from driving is often not taken into account. That goes back to the North committee and, before that, to decisions of the Court of Appeal. It has always been said that the consequences of bad driving ought not to be taken into account unless a serious moral culpability is attached to the quality of the driving. For example, where there is dangerous driving, a death could be taken into account, so we have such an offence. However, paragraph 6.17 of the North report says:

"We agree that it would be wrong to visit on the driver severe penalties for the consequences of an act which amounted only to carelessness."

The North committee went on to say that those serious consequences ought to be taken into account in sentencing and suggested that legislation provide for thatB; unfortunately, the previous Government did not follow that recommendation.
That has always struck me as strange in comparison with other aspects of criminal law. In other cases, one does take the consequences of an act into account. For example, it is often said that the difference between wounding and manslaughter can be a fraction of an inch—a particular wound not causing death in one case but doing so in another and justifying the manslaughter charge. More generally, where the possible consequences of driving are foreseeable, they ought to be taken into account in sentencing if they then occur, whether or not they amount to death or serious injury.
When I was Solicitor-General, until 2001, I referred a number of cases to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, to try to get judges to address the consequences of dangerous and careless driving. In the 1990s, the Court of Appeal said quite clearly in several cases that one should not take into account the fact that a death had occurred. In 1996, in the case of Downing, the Court of Appeal said that the judge should have had regard solely to the degree of carelessness and culpability involved, and should not have taken into account the tragic death that ensued. There were similar cases, such as Morling, and earlier ones such as Krawec.
In a case called Simmonds in 1999, the Court of Appeal clearly established that where death had resulted from careless driving, a higher sentence should result. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham touched on the fact that magistrates do not seem to have got that message. One can take into account the consequences of dangerous driving, such as death, when sentencing.

85WH
Earlier in April, in a case called Cooksley, the Court of Appeal made it quite clear that death can be taken into account in the sentence imposed by a Crown court. That case has also made it quite clear that when drivers cause death as a result of dangerous driving, they normally must expect a custodial sentence. It is a very detailed judgment, which resulted from the particular matter being considered by the sentencing advisory panel. One paragraph from the judgment commented that motor vehicles could be lethal if not driven properly. That being so, drivers must know that if, as a result of their driving dangerously, a person is killed—no matter what the mitigating circumstances—a custodial sentence will normally be imposed. I hope that Crown courts and magistrates courts will take that into account when sentencing in the future.
Sentencing is important, but as my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, certain offenders do not get the message. They have previously been sentenced for motoring offences, yet they continue to drive in a way that ultimately leads to death. There is a core of persistent offenders, and my hon. Friends were quite right in saying that their activity makes them criminals. We must think not only of the substantive law in terms of the offences, and not only of how we sentence those cases, but must think of other ways to address a serious social problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned the fact that there seems to be a huge amount of driving by people who have been disqualified. We do not seem to be addressing that issue.
As for alcohol, in the Cooksley case the Court of Appeal said that where there was death by dangerous driving, the fact that a person had been drinking would be an aggravating feature. About 14 per cent. of fatal road accidents involve drivers with illegal levels of alcohol. About half those drivers are at almost twice the legal limit, and about 30 per cent. are young men. We must do something to address that. There has been a downward trend over the years in the number of drink-related casualties, but the trend seems to be flattening out. We must address the issue by enhancing the rehabilitation courses that drink drivers must take. We also need more drastic action in terms of allowing those people to drive again. As for breathalysing, it is possible for the police to stop vehicles and to breathalyse on the basis of a suspicion that a driver has been drinking, but why should we not have random tests?
We have introduced speed cameras and we have allowed the hypothecation of moneys raised through their use. There are now netting-off arrangements, and the evidence certainly demonstrates that there has been a substantial effect. Research published in February by University College London and PA Consulting demonstrated that there had been a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites. We have done a certain amount, but I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I agreed with the Select Committee on Transport when it said that the new rules about visibility and location of cameras were unreasonable. Those rules stated that cameras had to be painted yellow and could not be obscured in any way. The Select Committee said that people would die as a result. I agree with the Government that we have to target the areas where the most serious speeding occurs, but I see no objection whatsoever to putting cameras in concealed places or to the use of hand-held cameras.
86WH
We must introduce a range of measures to address a serious social problem. We will always face political problems, and I concede that. However, we faced them over seat belts. This country was very slow in introducing compulsory seat belt wearing. In the early 1980s, it was said that compulsion was an unjustified invasion of freedom. It was said that seat belts, far from preserving life, imperilled it in some cases. It was said that some people would have difficulty in complying with the law. Finally, however, we bit the bullet, and, as a result, seat belts have saved many lives.
There will always be a backlash; we saw that when cameras appeared on the political agenda in early 2000. Various newspapers, especially the tabloids, ran campaigns about how cameras were one more thing oppressing the motorist, how they were affecting the right to drive, how it was somehow unsporting of the police to catch people in such a way, and so forth. We will face such problems. However, many people in the community support such measures, and we should not be misled by what the tabloids, motoring organisations or motoring journals might say.
In 1988, MORI asked people to respond to this statement:

"The police should be allowed to stop drivers at any time and perform 'Spot Checks'".

Some 41 per cent. strongly agreed, and 37 per cent. tended to agree. A MORI poll in 2001 found that 67 per cent. of drivers wanted cameras outside schools, and 80 per cent. did not think that they were an infringement of civil liberties.
We must also deal with the problem of criminality. Often, as my hon. Friends have said, serious perpetrators on the roads are criminals. Home Office research briefing note 5/00 found that a high percentage of dangerous and disqualified drivers were also perpetrators of other kinds of crime, and that traffic officers therefore had a dual role in protection against both traffic and mainstream offences. We must do more.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck on raising this important issue and putting it on the agenda again. The law has not caught up with the fact that cars can be dangerous killing machines. As my hon. Friend has said, causing death or injury as a result of negligence should not be punished lightly because such a crime was committed while someone was driving.
10.27 am
Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing the debate. He will be aware that this country has the dubious honour of being the place in which the first ever road accident death occurred, 107 years ago. Tragically, during the intervening years, the number of people who have died on our roads, and throughout the world, has increased phenomenally. It is estimated that more than 1 million people are killed worldwide every year as a result of road accidents. As other hon. Members have observed, we in the UK have a relatively good record of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Even so, in this country some 3,500 people die every year, which means that about 10 people will die today, and tens of thousands of people are injured, so about 1.400 will be injured today. Much more work must be done.

87WH
Although it is worth bearing in mind that research done in 1999 by the Transport Research Laboratory suggested that the official figures probably understate the number of people who die and are injured, even if the official statistics from 1999 onwards are used, we find that some 150 people died on the railways, but 17,000 died on our roads in the same period. We all know that a rail accident gets acres of front-page media coverage day after day, yet the tens of thousands of people who die or are seriously injured on our roads rarely get even a column inch. It is important that we give more attention to deaths and serious injuries on our roads, which is why I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has secured this brief debate today.
Like others, I pay tribute to the work of RoadPeace, which was established in 1992 to represent and support road traffic victims. It supports the victims of all road accidents, not only those that result from dangerous driving and aggravated dangerous driving, but all its recommendations and proposals, if adopted, would certainly benefit victims of the crimes that we are discussing. For example, ever since it was established, RoadPeace has argued that it is vital to put the victims of road crime at the heart of policy making.
We should give much greater support and assistance to the victims of road traffic accidents. We should, for example, allow much greater use to be made of victim impact statements in court cases. There is no doubt that when the statements are used, victims feel that they have been part of the process and that their voice has been heard, and that that has been reflected in the sentences handed down. One person who was able to make such a statement said:

"The fact that the barrister for the crown and the judge referred to"

the impact statement

"at length, reading aloud extracts, made a big difference to my brother and myself. I was very grateful to RoadPeace for making us aware that we could do this."

She said that she felt that she had "made a valid contribution."
We must give more information and support to such victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who apologises for not being able to be here, told me of a case that occurred some 18 months ago in which the 14-yearold son of his constituents Christine and Jim Bradford died in a road accident. Not only did they have to cope with the trauma of their son's death, but they faced a huge struggle with the complex process that followed and its various procedures, not least in trying to get all sorts of information that they wanted, including independent measurements and so on. It is vital that we make that process easier for the victims of crime.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that although many victims want access to police reports, they are difficult to come by and can in some cases cost hundreds of pounds—it seems that there is no common charging policy. Perhaps we should consider making those reports more readily available and affordable. There is difficulty assessing information, but in some cases we make it particularly hard. If a case leads to a summary conviction, there is a six-month time limit on bringing
88WH
charges. Whether a case comes before a magistrates court as a summary offence or whether a more serious charge is brought is decided in light of the information gathered, yet the time limit makes it difficult to gather the information in the appropriate time. We should address that.
A key point rightly made by many hon. Members is that sentencing policy does not appear to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. There is no doubt that in many of the examples given by hon. Members—and I could cite others from my constituency—victims have been led to believe that the criminal justice system simply does not take cases of death by dangerous driving or aggravated dangerous driving anything like seriously enough. We need to ensure that offenders are appropriately dealt with in relation to the crime, and that we send out a clear signal to society about the importance of the issue.
As the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) rightly pointed out, research shows that, many perpetrators of dangerous driving or aggravated dangerous driving have fairly lengthy criminal records. They are not hapless victims of unfortunate circumstances; they are criminals, and should be treated as such. The Department's most recent research shows that 75 per cent. of dangerous driving offenders are males under 30, so it is worth bearing in mind the importance of giving training to young people.
The figures also show that almost invariably, those charged with dangerous driving are not facing their first or their last driving offence: 46 per cent. of them have previously been convicted on three or more occasions and 56 per cent. of offenders with three or more previous court appearances in 1996 went on to commit a further offence in 1997. That suggests that the whole process is riot acting as a deterrent. Evidence shows that serious traffic offenders cannot be thought of as otherwise law-abiding members of society: 50 per cent. of dangerous drivers had previous convictions and 30 per cent. of them had convictions for car theft.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck suggests that there should be a new category of offence. I am aware of the argument that, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service could use a charge of manslaughter, but appears to be reluctant to do so. There may well be great merit in the argument, which is supported by RoadPeace, but if nothing else, we ought to get our current procedures right. That is why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should look closely at the commitment already made by the Home Office to increase the minimum sentence from 10 years to 14 years.
The Government made that commitment in July 2002. It is worth reflecting on the seriousness with which the Home Office views the matter, which is shown in the press release of 24 July that was produced as a result of various Government consultations on road traffic penalties. It states:

"The paper recommends that the maximum penalty for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs; and causing death by aggravated vehicle taking, should be increased to 14 years."

The Government made a clear commitment to introduce that. The press release continues:

89WH

"Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth said: 'The message we are sending out is clear: dangerous driving kills and those found guilty can expect to be severely punished."'

The Government have an opportunity to do something in that respect: it is possible to table an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that is currently passing through the House. It has been suggested that such an amendment would be outside the scope of the Bill as it currently stands, but the Government have suggested in Committee that they intend to introduce a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of illegal firearms. If they are prepared to do that in respect of the use of illegal firearms, it is possible for them to table an amendment to increase the sentence for certain road traffic offences from 10 to 14 years, and I hope that they will do so. I know of several right hon. and hon. Members serving on the relevant Standing Committee who intend to table their own amendment to that effect in an attempt to persuade the Government to act, but it would be far better if the Government did it themselves. I hope that we will hear a clear statement from the Minister today that that is their intention. It is peculiar that the maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years but the maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated dangerous driving is only 10 years. That sends out the wrong signal. I hope that we will take this issue seriously, and I want to hear a clear commitment from the Government on that today.
I would have liked the opportunity to say something about the need to reduce the drink-drive limit—I have already tried to persuade Parliament to do that—and about the importance of other factors in judging what constitutes aggravated dangerous driving, including the use of hand-held mobile phones. This is a serious issue, which is not given the attention it deserves in this country. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Wansbeck for securing this debate.
10.39 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on initiating this debate, on his moving and powerful speech, and on the constructive suggestions that he made. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) referred to a constituency case in which three people were killed as a result of illegal driving in November 2000. Probably like other hon. Members, I was informed by the harrowing account of a series of appalling road incidents given in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle on 3 February, which detailed nine cases from the Newcastle and north-east area. I think that I am right to say that all those cases involved persistent offenders and people who had been disqualified from driving over a long period—people such as Mr. Carr, who had been disqualified for life, and others who had repeatedly been drinking and driving.
We should discuss such a serious issue at two levels. I will focus first on persistent criminal behaviour. The debate is timely in that it has been initiated so soon after the result of the Attorney-General's reference and the strong recommendations by the Lord Chief Justice on 3 April that the Government should now increase the maximum penalty, as hon. Gentlemen have said. The offence of dangerous driving that results not in death but in serious injury should be increased from two years
90WH
to five years and the maximum penalty for dangerous driving that causes death should be increased from 10 years to 14 years.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that now is the time for the Minister to make a policy announcement about such matters and to say that an amendment will be made to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Government have introduced any number of criminal justice measures and I should be surprised if, as the hon. Gentleman said, they argued that there is not the scope in the Bill to extend the maximum penalty for such serious offences. I certainly hope that that happens.
Equally important is whether the sentence, whatever it is, is implemented—imposed and served. I refer to the sense of outrage felt by the victims' families when their loved ones are killed by criminal behaviour but the sentence imposed does not mean what it says. As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the headline sentence might be eight years, but after two years and four months the person may go into an open prison, and in a few more weeks he may be scot-free. It does not set a good example to the public if that can happen to someone who killed three innocent victims in an appalling driving incident. It gives the impression that we take the subject too lightly.
Like the hon. Member for Wansbeck, I want to know how it came about that the Crown Prosecution Service did not feel obliged to prosecute any of the other occupants of Mr. Carr's car. He had been disqualified from driving for life as a result of another incident. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that incident because there had been so many. That incident took place in Scotland. Mr. Carr was sentenced in the sheriff court to four years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for life, having driven furiously at a speed in excess of 100 mph. His friends must have known about his criminal background, and known that he did not have a driving licence, yet having behaved despicably, they were not brought to justice. I wonder whether the Crown Prosecution Service feels that pressure is being put on it by the Government not to bring too many cases to court, but to keep matters nice and simple by going for the main culprit and letting the others go by the wayside.
There is too much pressure on the courts from the Government to ensure that sentences imposed are reduced, or are not as great as Parliament has set down that they may be. We read in the papers that the Government are obsessed with the number of people in our prisons. I am the first to say that we should not have people in prison who do not deserve to be there or who need to be released sooner, but there must surely be space in our prisons for the sort of people that we have been discussing today to serve extended sentences as a result of their culpability. I hope that the Minister will make clear statements in response to those points.
The issues are very serious, but through their policy the Government have the chance to change the law in the Criminal Justice Bill and to make a robust statement responding to the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the Attorney-General's reference case on 3 April. It is better that I conclude my remarks now to give the Minister a little extra time to respond. I know that he always relishes the opportunity to answer all the points that have been raised.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I relish the opportunity to answer all points made during the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing it, and in particular on the way in which he opened it and has conducted it. He spoke with considerable passion and conviction. He conveyed his anger, and that of his constituents, over a particular incident, and over other incidents in which death occurred. When there is a death of a young child, passions are even stronger. I noted the words of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who talked about the frustration and distress that such incidents cause, and I concur.
The debate has been wide ranging. We have touched on road safety, sentencing and the operation of the courts. I shall be somewhat restrained in responding to all those points. Hon. Members will appreciate that much of the debate has gone beyond my brief, but I shall nevertheless attempt to respond to it on behalf of the Government.
As a preface to my remarks, it is true to say, as other Members—not least my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston)—have said, that this country has a good road safety record compared with that of other countries. That said, more than 3,000 people still die on our roads each year, and about 10 times that number are seriously injured. A figure that sticks in my mind is that each year, the equivalent of a medium-sized primary school of children is killed. That is the problem that we face. Although we have a good record, it will never be good enough, which is why we must continue with our successful efforts to drive down the figures.
I listened carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. I totally support the tougher measures for which he called to deal with those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. I am grateful for the helpful contributions from other hon. Members. I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's views. Road safety is a matter in which we all have an interest, and the Government take the protection of all road users very seriously.
I am sure that Members would agree that the vast majority of the motoring public are responsible, law-abiding people who treat their fellow road users with care and respect. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a small minority, for whatever reason, seem either unwilling or unable to conform to the normal standards of driving behaviour that we have come to expect; they do not observe the laws that exist to protect us all. It is true that the vast majority of younger drivers are extremely responsible, and we are talking about a tiny minority of people who cause a disproportionate amount of distress to others.
I am only too aware of the extremely distressing case to which my hon. Friend referred, and I have noted his early-day motion 668 calling for action to deal with criminal motorists who have killed other road users. The case of Rebecca Sawyer, who was just 6 years old, and her sister, Kirsty, who was just 18 months, is both tragic and shocking, as the debate has clearly demonstrated. The driver responsible for Rebecca's death and for
92WH
seriously injuring Kirsty was, rightly, given a significant term of imprisonment. However, given his dreadful history of offending and his previous convictions for both motoring and other criminal offences, I fully appreciate the concerns raised by the case, particularly the importance of ensuring that there is an appropriate response to such utterly antisocial behaviour.
I share my hon. Friend's view that we should do everything reasonably possible to avoid any repetition of such an appalling incident. Indeed, the Government take seriously any suggestion that might help to reduce the annual toll of road deaths and injuries. I am sure that I need not remind the House that improving road safety is one of the priorities of the Government's transport policy. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government's road safety strategy addresses the whole spectrum of road safety issues.
Much has been achieved during the past few decades by successive Governments with better highway and vehicle engineering, improvements to driver testing and training, publicity and education, and focusing on the safety of road user groups. Improvement in car security systems has led to fewer car thefts because it is much more difficult to steal modern cars. Sometimes the crimes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck referred take place in older cars without modern security systems.
We have also examined more rigorously the problem of driver behaviour and—this is of particular relevance to this morning's debate—it has been necessary, when persuasion does not seem to work, to look at stronger methods of enforcing road traffic law. One of our main commitments in that respect was to carry out a detailed review of penalties for road traffic offences in 2001, on which a report was published last year. A number of hon. Members have alluded to that.
On the specific issues raised by this debate, I share the concerns of my hon. Friend, and of many victims of road traffic incidents and their families, that appropriate sentencing for serious bad driving leading to death or serious injury is fundamental. The devastating impact of such crime is not always fully appreciated. As a number of hon. Members have said, such incidents are sometimes unreported. When cases come to court, the distress caused to victims and their families may not be raised or seems to be given minimal attention. The damage is, of course, most immediately experienced by the victims and their families, but there is also a significant threat to the security and general well-being of our communities.
In individual cases, sentences must be determined by courts on the basis of all the information that they have on each offence and offender. It has been suggested from time to time that there should be an additional "aggravated" offence that combines a measure of bad driving with the commission of other offences, such as driving while disqualified or without insurance. I think, however, that that is largely a matter for sentencing rather than for another offence. Normally, all relevant offences are put before the court, and it would be for the bench to take account of them in determining the appropriate sentence. However, the Government are aware that sentences perceived to be lenient can undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. As a result, our report on the review of road traffic penalties, which sets out our preferences for

93WH
changes to penalties, includes measures intended to provide the courts with sufficient additional powers to allow them to achieve a just disposal more readily in individual cases.
Most notably, in the review of penalties, we announced our intention to increase the penalties available for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, and aggravated vehicle-taking where death results. We said that we would raise the sentence to 14 years' imprisonment as soon as a legislative opportunity arose. We will make an announcement on the matter. The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised the issue, as well. We have been looking for a legislative slot to deal with the matter. We are urgently considering it as a matter of considerable priority. An announcement will be made shortly.
Mr. Steinberg: With great respect, I have being hearing that since 2001. As I explained, I have met two Secretaries of State and a Minister of State. I was greeted with a lot of sympathy, but two years on, there is still no new legislation. Will the Minister guarantee that new clauses or amendments will be tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is presently going through Parliament, to deal with the problem?
Mr. Jamieson: The issue is beyond the remit of my Department, so I cannot give my hon. Friend that guarantee. However, he has known me for a long time, in the House, and I assure him that it will not be long before he knows the result of the deliberations. The matter is of considerable importance to the Government, and we will make an announcement shortly. I hope that that announcement will bring some satisfaction to my hon. Friend. I cannot make the announcement now, but I hope that that is helpful to him.
In addition to the "causing death" offences, we said that we wanted to increase the maximum penalties for the core offences of dangerous driving, aggravated vehicle taking, other than where death occurs, and careless driving. For the first two offences the maximum penalty would be raised from two to five years' imprisonment, and for careless driving it would be raised from a fine of £2,500 to one of £5,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, that would make that offence arrestable. Again, we are looking for a legislative opportunity to bring those changes in and, again, we hope that it will not take too long. That matter will probably be more properly dealt with by my Department, and it will be addressed with some urgency.
94WH
My hon. Friend also made some important points about abandoned cars. That matter is very relevant to the debate. We are all concerned that abandoned cars blight the environment and all too often act as a magnet for crime and antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend will be aware that, as a result of changes introduced in May 2002, local authorities can act more quickly against cars abandoned on the public road.
We also intend to reform the vehicle licensing and registration system to ensure that it is much more difficult for those who commit a whole range of vehicle-related offences—including the dumping of cars—to get away with it. We have already secured primary powers for a system of continuous registration, under which it will not be possible for people to evade responsibility for licensing their cars. We expect to make a full announcement soon.
In particular, we are promoting joint working between local authorities and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to tackle the problem of unlicensed and untaxed cars, which are tomorrow's abandoned cars and very often end up being used in the sort of criminal activity about which we have been talking today. Under the arrangements, the local authority can take the DVLA's powers to clamp and remove unlicensed vehicles. Joint working with a growing number of local authorities around the country has resulted in the removal of more than 8,000 vehicles in total, of which more than 3,500 have been crushed and removed permanently from the roads. Those initiatives have led to a reduction in abandonment, vehicle excise duty evasion, and other associated criminality. I understand that Wansbeck council is not currently participating in the scheme; I know that the DVLA would very much welcome an approach from the council, if it decides that it wants to go down that road.
Mr. Denis Murphy: That may well be because financial responsibility lies directly with the local authority. Will the Minister give us an assurance that extra resources will be made available to move those vehicles?
Mr. Jamieson: There is no time to go into that today. My hon. Friend's local authority can find out from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency what resources are available.
Time is against me. My hon. Friend and other Members have raised very important points and extremely distressing constituency matters. I hope that I have given some reassurance that the Government take such issues extremely seriously. If I have not been able to cover all the points, either the Home Office, which will also consider the debate very carefully, or I will respond later.

Part-Time Students
11 am
Dr. Hywel Francis: I have sought this Adjournment debate because the needs of part-time students have largely been ignored in the present debate on the future of higher education. The recently published White Paper is to be welcomed as an acknowledgement of that omission, in that it is the first real recognition of the needs of part-timers since the creation of the Open university.
My purpose is to address five crucial matters: first, policy development in the context of equity; secondly, the need to recognise the Open university as a model worthy of better support; thirdly, the need to challenge the fear and reality of student debt; fourthly, the need to recognise the diversity of approach now developing across the United Kingdom; and, finally, the precise needs of part-time students.
I begin with policy development. The Government's commitment to a future system of higher education that is larger, stronger, more inclusive and more serviceable is very welcome, but policy is still underdeveloped in their consideration of the place of part-time students and of recurrent, lifelong access to HE. I declare an interest in that I am vice-president of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—NIACE—the adult learners body.
For more than a quarter of a century, I worked in adult education, which has always been part-time. Until recent years, students financed themselves, paying for their fees, travel, books and child care support. They were largely working-class people who in recent decades began studying in much greater numbers for part-time degrees on campus or in the community within what in my part of the world has become known as the Community University of the Valleys.
I heard about two such students nearly a year ago from one of my constituents, Mr. Cled Phillips, himself a product of the adult education movement and a very distinguished servant of the Workers Educational Association. He wrote:

"Just a line to let you know that two ladies of Port Talbot, mature, part-time students of your Department at Swansea University … have both achieved First Class BA Honours this year.… This confirms the WEA and Extra-Mural faith in education for life once again. My daughter Hilary Phillips, a Sister, since 1979, as District Nurse at Port Talbot achieved her First Class Degree taking as her main subject Social Policy.…

Her friend, Gail Jones of … Taibach had a First Class BA Degree in English Literature. She is a mother and housewife … who trained with my daughter as a nurse at the Royal Infirmary in Cardiff in the mid-1970s.

I'm sure Hilary and Gail are amongst a growing throng who have benefited from … the aims of the WEA."

Such students are only now beginning to register on the radar screens of politicians and policymakers. I believe that the recent White Paper breaks new ground in that respect, but it must be seen only as part 1; part 2 must be a paradigm shift towards a journey of hope for part-time students in HE—a journey which must take account of what Cled Phillips called the "growing throng" across the whole age range who wish to make widening participation a living reality for themselves.
The White Paper speaks of meeting the needs of a more diverse student body and of improved support for those doing part-time degrees, as if that diversity were
96WH
not already with us. In fact, more than 30 per cent. of the total cohort of students in HE are already part-time. Part-timers are already in the mainstream, studying at different ages, in bits—not always in three-year blocks—flexibly, at work, in the community, at home or on campus, and often through e-learning. All that should be recognised as the norm, not the image of fresh-faced, full-time young people, important though they are. Equal opportunity should mean equal opportunity throughout life.
In terms of policy development, there are three major considerations. First, HE today is very different in composition and experience from the system with which most MPs grew up. That is not sufficiently reflected in the White Paper. Higher education today is no longer the preserve of an academic elite of young students moving straight from school to university to follow full-time three-year or four-year honours degrees. Instead, in England 29 per cent. of full-time students in 2001–02 were aged over 21 and 92 per cent. of all part-time students in 2001–02 were aged over 21. In total, more than half of HE students are aged over 21.
Secondly, the White Paper is not sufficiently radical in its consideration of how part-time students of all ages and mature full-time students can access and benefit from higher education. Although the White Paper does not impose any new age-related restrictions in the package of full-time student financial support in England, neither does it take the opportunity to remove the unfair and unpopular restriction on older people—those aged over 54—accessing student loans. Setting that aside would be an important symbolic commitment to lifelong learning, it would make economic sense at a time when, in an ageing society, more adults will need to extend their participation in the labour force, and it would be unlikely to have more than a marginal effect on public expenditure.
Although the Secretary of State's intention from 2004 to extend eligibility for support through the access to learning fund for certain part-time students studying the equivalent of at least 12 credits is encouraging, it would be helpful to have further details. Proposals for top-up fees may have a disproportionate effect on the participation in part-time courses of students from lower socio-economic groups unless they also have access to a higher level of loans—repayable on the same terms as those for full-time students. Although support for part-time students facing hardship is welcome, for self-financing career developers seeking to raise their qualifications from level 3 to level 4, anticipated significant fee increases will be a real disincentive without access to loans on the same terms as full-time students. If such students cannot access loans, the impression may be given that the Government will support a "student lifestyle" for full-time students but will not help those adults who are keen to help themselves.
The White Paper gives little consideration to how e-learning might be further developed by all institutions, not only the Open university, to open up access to knowledge transfer. With the exception of engagement with business, the White Paper is underdeveloped in its consideration of how HE institutions relate to other groups in civil society. This failure is of concern since it is through a variety of outreach activities that learners

97WH
from non-traditional groups, for whom full-time study is not an option, can explore what HE might have to offer them and their communities.
Thirdly, unless specific consideration is given to part-time students' needs, they become invisible in comparison to the needs of school and college leavers extending their initial education through full-time study. There is a danger that the 50 per cent. 18-to-30 age group participation target will prioritise the needs of young people wishing to follow full-time three-year honours degrees in the first instance, and the needs of those following full-time foundation degrees in the second. Although the Government may not intend to marginalise part-time study, the relative absence from the White Paper of reforms tailored to meet the specific needs of part-time students makes it hard for their needs to be considered as anything other than an afterthought.
The Government paper published this month, "Widening Participation in Higher Education", which details proposals for the new Office for Fair Access, appears to acknowledge part-time study only in the context of foundation degrees. In the case of arrangements for mature part-time research students, the Government need to do more than perm it institutions to fund PhD places from their own resources. They should actively incentivise universities to develop new research opportunities for part-time research students to combine study and work—thus building essential links between universities and older learners in industry, commerce or public service employment.
The biggest single experiment in widening opportunities in HE has been the Open university. It has pioneered three significant developments: open entry, supported open learning and distance learning, now e-learning. Given our Government's commitment to fairness and enterprise, it is surprising that that learning experience, with continuing high quality and low unit cost, does not attract more attention in the White Paper.
The OU is a model worthy of close scrutiny and better funding to drive forward the wider participation agenda. The Government would do well to note its characteristics. Year on year, between a quarter and a third of all part-time UK undergraduates choose to study with the OU. The OU has deepened and widened access to HE. Two thirds of its students are aged between 30 and 49 and more than half are women. Nearly half of OU graduates had fathers with manual occupations—almost double the proportion found among students elsewhere.
I referred earlier to student debt. It is crucial that the Government take seriously the most recent research and the views of student bodies on this matter. Professor Claire Callender of the South Bank university in her recently commissioned work "Attitudes to Debt" for Universities UK reveals that it is a factor in recruitment. In my teaching experience, part-timers were very often part-timers because of the fear of the consequences of leaving paid employment, and that affected rates of retention.
A consistent theme of the part-time student is the constant juggling of work, family, travel, and financial responsibilities: 90 per cent. in one survey were in employment. The financial decisions part-timers make can greatly affect their academic success. Working long
98WH
hours and studying part-time affects retention and drop-out rates. Sound financial advice, guidance and counselling are therefore crucial for part-timers.
I mentioned at the outset the need to recognise the diversity of policy now being developed by a democratically devolved United Kingdom. Scotland has given priority to linking education to enterprise, and in Wales the concept of "the learning country" puts a high premium on lifelong learning. There is no reason to believe that the "State of the Nations", as a recent NIACE study conference was called, will not provide new strategies for widening participation in HE. One such initiative combines the strategies of the OU and the community universities in focusing on community-based e-learning. Connecting Communities Cymru links one university—Swansea—to seven communities where low aspiration, geographical isolation, low HE participation, "inherited" unemployment and negative experiences in compulsory education predominate.
I will end by posing some questions about the specific needs of part-time students, and I begin with quality. Will the Government be asking leading research-intensive institutions whether part-time students can access their courses, and if not, why not? How can part-time students following HE programmes in further education colleges be assured of a learning experience of no less high a quality than full-time students receive?
On the issue of accessibility, part-time students need to study close to home. How will the Government ensure that they are able to access a broad and balanced curriculum? Is there a case for encouraging HE institutions to develop stronger structures for regional planning? On the question of flexibility, what will the Government do to encourage a more comprehensive system of credit accumulation and transfer so that part-time learners can move more easily through the system, changing the rate and mode through which credit is acquired to meet changing needs and circumstances? What can the Government do to ensure that learners and employers do not see foundation degrees as second-class qualifications and that the new qualifications extend opportunity? What evidence is available? Given the increasing divergence between different parts of the UK, which I have already mentioned, how will the Government ensure that the system is both fair and equitable for part-time learners in all parts of the UK, no matter where they study?
Turning to links between HE and other learning, the distinctions made by funders and providers about different kinds of learning are not always understood or accepted by learners. How will the Government ensure that unnecessary boundaries are avoided at the interface between higher education and further education, between higher education and community-based learning, and between higher education and work-based learning?
Next, I refer to the need for greater parity of treatment between full-time and part-time study. What assurances can the Government give that the remit of the proposed Office for Fair Access will not privilege students following a full-time route to HE awards over those following the part-time route? In other words, will there be equal opportunities for access to services and resources for part-timers? If full-time students are to make repayments on their loans only once they are earning, will the Government confirm that part-time

99WH
students should not have to pay the full amount of their fees, which may be almost three times higher each year than at present, before they too have completed their courses? Will the Government confirm that part-time students have access to loans to meet the cost of their fees, repayable only once they have completed their course?
Finally, and most fundamentally, can the Government give assurances that they will act if the proposals for HE reform are found to have increased the barriers faced by part-time students in comparison with full-time students in such matters as entitlement and access to welfare and support services while on their courses? After all, improving entitlement and improving access will be the real measure of higher education reform.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) on securing this Adjournment debate, and on his passion for and clear knowledge about the issues that he brings to our attention. He understands more than most how access to lifelong learning has the capacity to transform people's life chances and to renew entire communities. As he said, part-time study is undoubtedly a growth area, which is something to be celebrated, supported and welcomed.
In the five years since 1996–97, the number of part-time students has increased by more than 15 per cent., from 267,000 to 309,000. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to encouraging more people into higher education, especially those from non-traditional backgrounds, about whom he spoke so eloquently. We recognise that particular challenges are faced by part-time students, in balancing learning with the commitment to their working and family lives.
It is right on such an occasion to record the fact that we believe that we have achieved a great deal. For example, the Government were the first to introduce support for part-time students on low incomes. The funding provided through discretionary fee support has increased from £2 million in 1998–99 to £17.3 million last year. Hardship funds were doubled in 1998–99, when part-time students first became eligible to apply.
In 1999, we introduced loans for part-time students on low incomes, at 50 per cent. on full-time courses, as part of our continuing strategy to encourage wider participation in higher education. In addition, disabled student allowances were extended in September 2000 to include students attending or undertaking part-time courses of higher education, again underlining our commitment to widen participation in higher education, and to improve equal opportunities. That support is available for students on both undergraduate and postgraduate part-time courses, including those students undertaking distance learning courses through the Open University.
My hon. Friend may be pleased to learn that we propose to do even more to build on that package of support for part-time students. Students on low incomes, for example, will benefit from guaranteed fee
100WH
support. A new grant will replace the existing loan, to help with the costs of travel, books and equipment. That grant will reduce barriers to entry into higher education for mature students and those over 54 who, as my hon. Friend said, cannot get a loan. Loans are available only to those under 55 simply because loans are written off at 65 and time is needed to recover payments.
For the first time, child care grants will be available for part-time students. As my hon. Friend will agree, that will greatly assist those juggling the demands of work, home and study. I strongly believe in the importance of offering support to those who want to spread study over much longer periods than has been traditional, particularly those who are unemployed or on very low incomes. We especially want to encourage those who are interested in taking taster HE courses with a view to pursuing an HE qualification in the longer term.
That is why we have decided that from 2004 the new access to learning fund, which replaces the existing hardship fund, will include funding to provide discretionary fee support. It will also help towards the other costs of study for students studying the equivalent of at least 10 per cent. of a full-time course. The precise details of the new package have yet to be settled, but will be announced once we have considered responses to the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education". I assure my hon. Friend that his representations in this debate will be taken into account as we frame our final decisions following the consultation process.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of flexible provision, particularly for the group of students whose views he is advocating this morning. I want to focus for a few minutes on various elements that contribute to that flexibility. The first is foundation degrees. The White Paper announced the allocation of £32 million over three years to develop foundation degrees in key employment sectors. It also makes it clear that the future expansion of HE will be largely through foundation degrees. That should further illustrate our commitment to encouraging more flexible, vocational HE provision that will appeal to those already in the labour market. Foundation degrees are designed to be attractive to all students, but the Government are particularly keen to ensure that they are attractive to part-time students.
My hon. Friend mentioned distance learning. As he said, methods of learning are greatly enhanced by the Open university. It continues to play a major role in the development of distance learning and the use of information and communication technology for delivering HE courses. As he will know, it has worked with Cambridge university to develop one of the first three courses to be delivered by the UKeU—the delivery arm of the e-universities project—from early 2003. That course is a master's module in learning in the connected economy. The Open university will have a key role in the delivery of the entire White Paper agenda. It is particularly well placed, as my hon. Friend has said, to deliver the flexible teaching and learning vital to an inclusive higher education sector. That course is an innovative way in which students can study online for a degree while still in full-time employment.
As well as supporting traditional ways of studying, we are working to encourage better use of technology to deliver HE provision more imaginatively and flexibly. I

101WH
think that my hon. Friend would agree that e-learning has the potential to provide interactive, individualised learning at the pace, place and level most suited to the learner. We have provided £62 million to set up the UK e-universities project to make HE more widely available over the internet for individuals and businesses. Part of the aim of e-universities is not only to help UK higher education institutions to secure a share of a very lucrative market, but to underpin a socially inclusive agenda. A number of the courses offered will be eligible for public funding.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are also keen to encourage community-based learning. He may be aware that, in my speech to NIACE's autumn conference last December, I emphasised my continuing commitment to adult and community learning, for those bring wide-ranging benefits, from the fostering of social inclusion to learning for leisure. In due course, with the publication of our national skills strategy and delivery, I intend to set out clearly our vision for adult and community learning in the long term. That is a part of the skills strategy that we will produce in June.
As my hon. Friend said, we must also consider credit transfer. People with other commitments or constraints are not always able to complete their studies in the way that is currently available to some part-time students. Credit systems, however, would make it possible to break off and start again without having to repeat learning, which is increasingly important for part-time learners in higher education. That is reflected in the White Paper, and we are encouraging the Higher Education Funding Council to start a two-year programme of work with other partners in the HE sector to identify and build on good practice in the use of credit systems. That work will include various pilot schemes to encourage the use of credit to support flexible progression and transfer between institutions and qualifications.
I turn now to student finance. My hon. Friend has genuine concerns about debt, but the Government believe that university education is one of the best investments that can be made. To underline that, on 25 April—only a few days ago—the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service reported that university applications had risen by nearly 4 per cent. and that 6.7 per cent. of that rise was in the over-25 age group. Student loans are nothing like commercial or high street debt, such as credit cards or mortgages, and they are repaid through the tax system and in proportion to earnings. People never have to pay more than they can afford. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we shall further ease the burden of repayment; in 2005 we will raise to £15,000 the income threshold at which repayments start.
102WH
There is no interest penalty if borrowers take longer to pay, because we do riot intend to charge interest above inflation.
A recent UNITE/MORI poll found that debt is not the major reason for dropping out. Students are more likely to drop out because of dissatisfaction with their course than they are for financial reasons. The same poll found that nine in 10 students are happy with their university experience and that eight in 10 think that it is a good investment in their future. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned access, which is linked to that issue. I assure him that there is no reason why an institution's future access agreement should not cover the widening of access to part-time and mature students. The intention is not to exclude those students from the efforts that higher education institutions make to widen participation.
Dr. Francis: I asked specifically about the role of the proposed Office for Fair Access. Will the Minister give an assurance that that office would be specifically required to ensure fair play and equal opportunities for part-time students?
Mr. Lewis: That is a very important part of the overall objective of widening access, and I would see that as a part of the relevant agreements. I can reassure my hon. Friend about that.
On devolution, tuition fees and statutory student support arrangements are currently the same in England and Wales. However, I am aware that the Assembly learning grant, which was introduced last September, is available to full and part-time Welsh students on low incomes. We are currently discussing the Welsh Education and Lifelong Learning Minister's proposals for the devolution of student support. The discussions are official and they will continue to develop proposals. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the Parliament and Assembly already have responsibility for student support matters, the financial support on offer to part-time students is virtually identical to the current support package in England and Wales. It is up to the devolved Administrations to decide whether they want to follow our lead and offer an enhanced package to part-timers.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my response and about our commitment to widening access and participation for part-time students. I welcome his contribution to the debate on the White Paper, and specifically on how we can ensure that the new approach to higher education supports the participation of non-traditional learners, part-time learners and mature students.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended.

Criminal Records Bureau
2 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall start by explaining why I have called today's debate. My interest in the Criminal Records Bureau was roused last November by a written parliamentary answer in the House of Lords. The Minister answering the question, Lord Falconer, announced that checks on 700,000 people mostly working with vulnerable adults were to be postponed indefinitely. Given my interest in issues affecting care of the elderly, that made me want to understand more about what was going on and what had led to that announcement.
The CRB is one of the pillars of this country's system of safeguarding vulnerable people. It is not the only safeguard, but it is an important one. The decision to postpone checks on those who work with vulnerable adults and frail elderly people has provoked an outcry from providers of care services to organisations, such as Action on Elder Abuse, and from practitioner organisations, such as the Social Care Association.
The statement made me want to know what had gone wrong with the system, why it had gone wrong and who was accountable. Strange things happen in this place at times. It was pure happenstance that I secured notification of this debate on the day that I met Lord Falconer and his officials to discuss some of the issues.
The CRB has a long history. The Conservative Government set out their plans to create the agency in a Green Paper in 1993. The idea had strong all-party support in the House. The idea for such an agency goes back even further, but taking 1993 as a starting point, the Home Office has been working for 10 years on plans to establish a centralised agency to provide criminal record checks. In preparing for the debate, I have learned as much as I can about the extensive programme of research undertaken by the Home Office to develop the business plan and the systems that underpin the CRB.
As the Minister will know, criminal record checks were originally to be available from the CRB from August 2001, 12 months after the private sector partner, Capita, signed the contract to deliver, manage and own the IT side of the operation. Over those crucial 12 months, each stage of the implementation programme suffered delays and setbacks. The CRB finally went live on 11 March 2002, seven months late. The first six months of operation saw a gradual increase in the number of applications for checks. Despite a low volume of demand for CRB checks in the early period, it failed to cope. Basically, the system lacks capacity.
In effect, the CRB was drowning in paper. The decision in May 2001 to include a full-scale, paper-based application route had a serious impact on its capacity. I am not just saying that; all the documentary evidence that I have considered supports that conclusion. It is hard to imagine how that problem occurred. It had originally been envisaged that customers of the CRB would apply by telephone or that an electronic route would also be available to apply for disclosures. As the Minister will know, given that: he has provided an answer to this effect, about eight out of 10 applications are based on paper.
The failure to identify at a much earlier stage such a basic customer requirement as how people would prefer to apply for CRB disclosures is staggering. From the
104WH
evidence that I have seen and the Home Affairs Committee's consideration of the matter in 2001, I know that the matter does not seem to have been addressed at any stage. Indeed, in an answer to me, the Minister confirmed that it was not the subject of a formal consultation with customers but arose only out of the exercise of informing prospective registered bodies of their role and functions and seeing which bodies would be interested. It then became apparent that a paper route would be necessary.
To compound that omission, the CRB has laid much of the blame for the backlog in processing applications that accumulated last year at the door of applicants and registered bodies for completing forms incorrectly, rather than doing what was really needed and offering further critical examination of the design of the forms and guidance for people completing them. Some new guidance has been issued and there has been welcome progress, although some of it has involved changes such as increasing the size of the paper to reduce the number of pages.
Three months after going live, and under intense pressure to deliver checks on teaching staff in time for the school year, the CRB announced a package of measures to improve performance, which included shifting the initial processing of paper applications to Madras, India and seconding hundreds of staff from the Passport Agency.
Five months after going live, the CRB commissioned an independent review by the French Thornton Partnership Ltd. of the core IT systems provided by Capita. In a written answer, the Minister refused to publish the report on grounds of commercial confidentiality. I have been led to believe, however, that when the consultants lifted the floorboards on the system they found a catalogue of serious defects. Software and applications were poorly documented, poorly coded and not adaptable enough to meet future business needs without major modifications. There is even a question mark over whether the system originally delivered by Capita was capable of coping with the demands of the basic disclosure. If that is true, it is hardly surprising that the Carter inquiry found that, even though the system had already undergone substantial "enhancements and improvements" since its original delivery, it was still in need of significant modification to make it fit for its intended purpose.
To what extent the Home Office's system requirement contributed to the CRB's difficulties must be understood not just in the Department but by hon. Members. Did the system originally delivered by Capita fit the Home Office specification? If so, what went wrong? If not, why was the system accepted?
Six months of poor performance and panic measures ended with the Home Secretary calling in troubleshooters. The independent review team led by Patrick Carter found no evidence that the CRB had the capacity to cope with the levels of demand that were forecast. Initial feedback was given to Ministers in September, and a final report was submitted to them in December 2002. That report has not been published, and only a summary of the main findings and recommendations has been made available.
Eight months in, capacity is still a problem for the CRB. As I mentioned at the start, plans to extend checks to staff working with vulnerable adults from April 2003

105WH
were postponed indefinitely. I hope that the Minister will say something about the announcements made last November. Will he tell us when a clear timetable will be published for the introduction of checks on staff working with vulnerable adults? It is time now to get some idea of a date by which people should be expected to have been checked, and for the frail, vulnerable elderly people who rely on obtaining at least part of the safeguarding system through the CRB to know that that is coming on stream.
Will the Minister confirm that the timetable, which I hope he will outline in the near future, if not today, will include a start date for the protection of vulnerable adults list from the Department of Health? In its planning for the delivery of that list, the Department's work must mesh with that of the CRB and the Home Office. The decision to postpone checks was an admission that the CRB was ill equipped to meet the demand anticipated in its business plan, which was only published in March 2002, yet and was then already out of date and in urgent need of rewriting. In fact, in the Select Committee the year before, a promise was made that the business plan would be available in March 2001. A year went by before it was published. When will revised forecasts, financial estimates and performance targets be published? Will they appear as part of the annual accounts, or will there be some separate reporting in the near future in advance of the National Audit Office's investigation of the CRB?
One year after the go live date, the Home Secretary accepted most of the Carter review team's recommendations. The introduction of the basic disclosure will be postponed until the system can reliably cope with all the demand for standard and enhanced disclosures. Perhaps the most telling thing is that just two and a half years after awarding Capita the contract, the Government are to embark on a costly renegotiation to secure a system that is capable of delivering the original business intention—the policy intention behind all this.
In preparing for this debate, I thought it would be useful not only to consider the national context but to take the opportunity of raising constituency issues with the Minister. I had the opportunity to talk to the Sutton Volunteer Bureau in my constituency, which is probably one of the largest of its kind in the country. It runs a wide range of services for volunteers, and it is a registered body. In the past year—the first year of the CRB's operation—it estimated that long delays in securing disclosures cost it one in six of the volunteers who came through its door seeking to work for it and the local community. That is an awful lot of people who did not get to volunteer and provide services volunteers whom the bureau could ill afford to lose. That must be being replicated throughout the country.
Sutton Volunteer Bureau has concerns about the plans to reform the disclosure process. It was surprised that provision had not been made for quality standards to be set on such issues as checking identity, detecting forgery and dealing with inconsistencies of evidence. It does not have that information supplied to it as a registered body; it can make contact with the CRB and take advice, but there is no proper training or guidance available. The bureau is strongly opposed to the 200 applications minimum for applying to be a registered body.
106WH
One of the reasons why the bureau registered with the CRB was the administration charge that it had to pay an umbrella organisation for each application. It was paying El 5 as an administration charge, which is a substantially lower figure than some that I have heard about in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, that was an additional burden on a hard-pressed charity, and it is a serious concern for many voluntary organisations, especially where access to registered bodies is limited. It has led the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to recommend a national network of regional umbrella registered bodies. Will the Minister be working with the voluntary sector to determine the best way to establish such a network with sufficient funding to allow sound databases and processes to be developed to ensure that local voluntary and community organisations throughout the country have equal access to services?
Sutton Volunteer Bureau raised concerns about the idea of prioritising employment groups for different levels of disclosure. It queries whether it will be possible to draw distinctions between different occupational groups that are all in contact with children or vulnerable adults. The NCVO, too, has expressed concern. It pointed out the difficulty in the CRB making decisions about matters on the basis of nationally determined criteria, without the benefit of the detailed and specific knowledge of the job at local level.
There is also a concern about the insurance implications of placing a statutory duty on registered bodies to validate identities. Although that may be a necessary change in the law, it has implications for organisations' insurance liability. What steps is the Home Office taking to review the insurance liability implications for registered bodies following the proposals in the consultation document?
Another point that my local volunteers made related to the proposed electronic application route, which is still being prepared, and the possibility of its becoming the sole route of application for disclosures. There are substantial set-up costs for registered bodies in achieving that means of access to the CRB. Putting in place the necessary IT, appropriate firewalls and other data protection systems is a complex undertaking. That leads me to the final point that was made: the need for more support from the CRB for registered bodies. If an electronic channel is to be opened, it will require training and ongoing support from the CRB. If the CRB is about managing a process from end to end, and registered bodies are an integral part of that process, organisations need to have the benefit of ongoing support from the CRB.
If the reforms of the disclosure process are to work, the CRB needs to implement a more comprehensive package of support and training. The deadline for consultation was 25 April—last Friday. Less than 12 weeks—12 weeks is recommended in the compact that the Government have signed with the voluntary sector, and in the Cabinet Office's code of good practice—was a short time scale within which to respond on an important subject. Given the pressure that his Department is under to table amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, can the Minister give an assurance that full consideration will be given to the responses from all the organisations before amendments are tabled, and can a written statement be provided of the Government's intentions in light of the consultation?

107WH
At the meeting that I had on Monday with my local volunteer bureau, concern was expressed about the enhanced disclosure where soft information becomes available. This is how the process works: an individual gets their certificate, which will say that they do not have a criminal record, but the agency that made the application on their behalf gets the form that has the tick to say, "Wait for the envelope that will have the soft information." That presents it with a series of issues. It is a voluntary organisation. It cannot tell the individual that it cannot appoint them because of the existence of soft information, as that would breach the requirements about registration, but it has to make it clear to the person that they cannot be appointed. Having done that, that person can walk away from that voluntary organisation with an enhanced disclosure certificate that has nothing on it.
Sutton Volunteer Bureau has heard of examples when people have done that and then gone to work for other voluntary organisations off the back of the enhanced disclosure certificate. What safeguards are in place to ensure that that cannot happen? It certainly should not happen. People should not have the opportunity to work somewhere else when there is information that should have been made available to those making that appointment decision.
The CRB is meant to be self-financing by 2007. In 2001, the Home Office secured the approval of Her Majesty's Treasury for a five-year cumulative cost recovery plan. That plan has to recover all the set-up costs incurred by the agency and Capita, all their running costs and—I believe—the cost of waiving charges for volunteers.
The unanticipated demand for, and use of, a full-scale paper-based application route an top of significant changes to the capabilities of the IT have increased the unit costs of producing a disclosure. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us today what is the current unit cost. The business plan mentions a figure of around £13, and it would be useful to know whether the figure is higher or lower than that. I believe that it is higher. The estimated loss of £100 million in revenue from the basic disclosure process over the next.three years means that fixed and set-up costs have to be spread over fewer standard and enhanced disclosures—disclosures that are more expensive to administer, leaving less scope for paying off what is in effect a loan from Her Majesty's Treasury and, I believe, from the Department of Health.
Unless the Home Office can strike a deal with HM Treasury—which I imagine is next to impossible—or other Departments, charges for disclosures will have to rise sharply to bridge the funding gap and to ensure that the organisation is brought into financial balance by 2007. Does the Minister agree that the CRB's customers should not be made to pay for poor project planning and incompetent implementation? Can he confirm that fee increases for disclosures will be indexed to prices, or will there be a different basis?
One of the most frustrating things about my inquiries into the CRB has been the refusal to publish key reports on grounds of commercial confidentiality. At times, commercial confidentiality offers a convenient means of clouding questions of accountability. I hope that the
108WH
Home Office will seek the agreement of Capita to waive commercial confidentiality, and publish the Carter report in full and the parts of the French Thornton review on the core system of Capita. That will help to shed light on many of the issues that I am raising.
Because of the absence of those reports, it is hard to pinpoint whether Capita delivered the system specified by the Home Office. The fact that the system has undergone countless changes suggests a serious flaw in the specification and a breakdown in communication during the design stage.
On 12 February 1997, the current Foreign Secretary, who was then shadow Home Secretary, said:

"The experience of setting up new agencies is not happy. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Child Support Agency are the best and worst examples, but by no means the only ones. Agencies set up from scratch and all at once have a habit of early systemic failure that can last for years."—[Official Report, 12 February 1997; Vol. 306, c. 379.]

He was right to issue that warning of

"early systemic failure that can last for years."

Unfortunately, during his watch at the Home Office most of the fatal decisions that set the CRB on course for chaos were taken. The Home Office agreement with HM Treasury that the CRB would recover its costs and become self-financing by 2007 means that Home Office Ministers are now stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they jack up fees for disclosures and court public outcry, or they try to persuade Her Majesty's Treasury to extend the payback period. It seems more likely that the cost of putting the CRB right will fall on those organisations and people who are obliged by law to apply for disclosures, and that is unfair.
In a memorandum of evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in January 2001, the Home Office said:

"Delay is clearly undesirable. However, the CRB service cannot and will not be allowed to go live until systems have been fully developed and tested and there is a high degree of confidence in the service being delivered to appropriately high standards."

Given the evidence available, it is hard to understand how Ministers or their officials could have had the "high degree of confidence" in the system necessary to authorise going live in March 2002. The system was not fit for the purpose and was not ready to cope: it should not have gone live.
2.20 pm
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this important debate. On any day other than today, more hon. Members might have been attracted to come and contribute their feelings on the rather sad state that the Criminal Records Bureau is in.
My hon. Friend's broad case is entirely correct. He put the questions that any sane and sensible person would have asked in the circumstances, and those questions demand replies from Ministers. The setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau was supported by all parties in the House, and as is so often the case when something is supported by all parties, we have ended up with serious questions about its implementation. Although the theory behind the idea may have been right, the practice in this instance can only be described as lamentable.

109WH
With issues of this kind, we often come back to the subject of project management of IT systems within Government. The subject appears to plague all Government, but especially the Home Office, whose record in this area is far from satisfactory. We all remember the Passport Agency and the immigration and nationality directorate problems. It seems that there is a lack of preparedness and understanding of how to frame admittedly complex matters of procurement in IT. The consequences are almost always systems that fail and enormous costs to the taxpayer—as well as the enrichment of certain IT companies in the process, which I do not accept to be a good consequence of the lack of proper procurement within Government.
The stages of procurement, which all seem to be at fault—my hon. Friend's evidence is clear on the point—re as follows: first, we must identify the task that we want the new machinery to effect; secondly, there must be a specification that translates that task into a contract; thirdly, there must be the development and implementation of that specification on the part of the contractor. On that third point, it seems that the Government often buy what is known in the trade as vaporware: systems that have not yet been developed but are promised on the basis of analogous operations elsewhere. However, when it comes to making the machinery fit the task, IT companies are often incapable of delivering.
Lastly, we must identify whether the system is sufficiently robust to be put into operation. Often, the equation is whether the Department accepts the machinery that has been provided, knowing that it is incapable of delivering in full the task that it has been set, or whether it is prepared to lose face and say, "No, I'm sorry, we cannot implement what we have promised, and we must go back to the supplier and say this will not do, this will not provide what we want."
Let us be fair: the problem is not confined to national Government. We accept that. It happens in the commercial world, and certainly in local government. From my personal experience, I remember finding myself twice arraying my legal tanks on the lawns of IT companies that had failed to deliver systems. On one occasion it was for the county council of which I was leader and on the other it was for the police authority of which I was chairman. In both instances, it was because the companies had failed to deliver the specification that we had required.
Obviously, there is a difference in scale when it comes to central Government. Moreover, there is a view, which the Minister should try to dispel, that too much is done by the Department in-house without sufficient expertise at its disposal to understand what it is actually demanding. I was interested recently, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, to take evidence from a number of learned societies, and in particular the computer engineers' society, which said that it had never been consulted by the Government and that it would be delighted to be consulted on IT procurement matters, because its expertise is clearly relevant and it could greatly assist the Government. As I said, there is a question mark over the procurement process.
There are several questions over how we arrived at this point in the first instance. My hon. Friend has spelled out some of the essential questions to be asked, including where the assessment of the required capacity
110WH
was. Was that assessment made at an early stage, and was it then correct or incorrect? If it was correct, why did the systems not deliver that capacity? If it was incorrect, why was that so and what post mortem has been undertaken to discover how a Department of State could make such a massive miscalculation?
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I agree with the comments of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). Will the hon. Gentleman consider adding something to his list of what Parliament and the people whom we represent should see? When the post mortem, as he calls it, has been divulged by the Government, should that not be placed, unedited, in the Library of the House of Commons, so that all Members, all constituents and all organisations affected by this shambles can see it?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I hope that much of the evidence will come from the National Audit Office inquiry and from the subsequent questions that our colleagues in the Public Accounts Committee will ask. That process will of course be open, but I shall be coming later to the question of openness and the cloak of commercial confidentiality, which I find entirely inappropriate where public sector money is involved. Incidentally, if we extend the analogy with local government that I made earlier, such confidentiality would be unavailable there, because the costs would be clearly specified in the authority's annual accounts. If they were not, they could be ascertained by the district auditor or by application to him. There is a clear difference in approach between what is required of local government and what is required of central Government.
Following the failure to deliver and to provide the capacity required, there was renegotiation with Capita. I think that we are entitled to know the basis on which that renegotiation has taken place. After all, Capita is not exactly unknown to Government and local government. It seems to have its finger in an awful lot of pies. I am not saying that that is necessarily a bad or a good thing, but I simply state that, because Capita is a major provider of services across a whole range of government in this country, it is reasonable for the public and the taxpayer to know what sort of terms and value they are getting in the execution of its contracts. It is unacceptable for such things to be swept under the carpet.
The effects of the inability to deliver were disastrous in many ways. There were all the problems with the start of the school term. The start of the school year seemed to come as a complete surprise to everybody associated with the Criminal Records Bureau. I would have thought that any sort of plan of operation would have had marked in clear and large letters the start of the school year, the lead-up to it and the fact that schools were likely to employ many new staff who would need clearance to allow them to work at the start of term. Apparently that was not so, and the start of term was a surprise. There was a completely unacceptable delay in approving school staff. As a result, there was an absurd situation—until the intervention of the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills—in which teachers employed by a school were sitting in the staff room, unable to deal with their pupils, despite the fact that, in

111WH
some instances, they had taught for many years without any difficulty, and the local education authority and the governors and head teacher of the school were all prepared to accept responsibility for those experienced teachers having contact with pupils.
The same thing applied not only to ancillary school staff and classroom assistants but to parents who wanted to contribute to schools and governing bodies. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the hurt and disquiet that were caused to many people. They were prevented from making their contribution to their own child's school simply because they could not get clearance. Many thought that it was a direct reflection on their character—which of course was quite wrong, but that was the perception.
Now there is an indefinite delay in applications for checks on those working with vulnerable adults. That is clearly wrong, because Parliament has willed that those checks should take place. Most people who are familiar with the area want to see the checks for the protection of vulnerable adults put in place at the earliest opportunity. Again, there has been a deleterious effect on recruitment in a sector that is already finding it difficult to recruit appropriate staff. The position is not sustainable in the medium term, let alone the long term.
What has the response been? The Government have reacted in a number of ways. As I said earlier, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills made an emergency decision at the start of the school year, which got the Government off the hook temporarily. Clearly, there was still a serious problem to be addressed. The Criminal Records Bureau was swamped in paper and was quite unable to perform the task that it had been allotted.
In August 2002, we had the French Thornton Partnership Ltd. assessment of the position. I have to ask the Minister yet again why on earth that assessment has not been published. It will not wash to say that it is commercially sensitive. We are considering deficiencies in a public system. If that is the way in which public-private partnerships are to work in future—if they are considered to be secret and commercially sensitive, meaning that British taxpayers cannot know what is going wrong with a system that they are funding, for the protection of the public good—there is a serious deficiency in the process. The assessment must be published.
The same is true of the Carter inquiry, which has come up with a series of recommendations, some of which will have been helpful to the Government and some of which will have been helpful but distasteful to the Government in terms of what they have to do to put things right. We would be much better informed were the inquiry available to hon. Members and the wider world, so that we could make cur own assessment of what has happened and is happening. I would like to know why, for instance, no detailed financial forecasts were made by the Criminal Records Bureau in its infancy. Why on earth was an agency of such size and importance allowed to go into operation without doing its sums properly? It did not carry out the financial forecasts that would have told us whether it had the redundant capacity to allow for any miscalculation.
112WH
We need to know what the costs of the new contract that must be negotiated to put things right will be, and where they will fall. We need to know how much of the cost is due to variation of contract on the part of the Government, which can be said to be the direct fault of the Home Office, and how much is due to the inability of the contractor to make good its previous promises. We need to know whether it is intended that any of those costs will be recouped from applicants—a point made so well by my hon. Friend earlier.
We need to know what level of performance will be deemed acceptable. When will the backlog be reduced to something that is manageable and appropriate? We are told that there has been a reduction in the backlog from 194,000 to 51,000 and that, because applicants are being dealt with faster than they are coming in, the backlog is still being reduced. Presumably, the Minister now has a clear view of when there will be no backlog and when he can revisit the decision not to extend the scheme to vulnerable adults. Will he share that view with us today?
We are told that the checks are 99 per cent. accurate, which sounds very reassuring—when one achieves a target of 99 per cent. in most matters, one can be well satisfied—but in this area we are dealing with 1 million applications over a period of six months. If 99 per cent. of the checks were accurate, I per cent. were inaccurate, which means that 10,000 people were wrongly assessed. Those people were either certified as no threat when they are, which is extremely serious for the people they are working with, or assessed as being a threat when they are not, which is extremely serious for the applicants and the people who wish to employ them. Either way, I would like to know what level of performance the Minister considers acceptable.
The Minister intends to table amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. He and I have some experience of the ins and outs of that Bill, and we look forward to resuming our jousting on that subject in the near future. Will he tell us when he intends to make those amendments available? That will ensure that they will receive proper scrutiny from the House, because he knows that we have two days on Report and on Third Reading to deal with a huge number of amendments to and aspects of the Bill, and we must be able to consult properly the organisations outside the House that will be affected, such as voluntary bodies. They must have the opportunity to have their views heard.
Are we going to continue with paper-based applications, or is it the intention to reduce the scale of such applications and return to the original vision of how the CRB will work? If that is the case, how long can we expect to wait for that to happen?
My hon. Friend has already explained the background to the position of voluntary bodies, so I will not repeat what he has said, but there are issues about the umbrella registered bodies, the threshold numbers, the appropriate levels of disclosure—and who decides them—and the insurance liability implications for voluntary organisations. Those are issues of huge importance to people whose assistance we as a country, as a society, desperately need in order to make many of our systems work. We owe it to them to make systems as helpful, not as difficult, as possible to operate.
This IT procurement debacle is yet another in a long list of battle dishonours that this Government and their predecessors have won. When will we learn from past

113WH
mistakes? When will we have an IT procurement policy that delivers on time and to budget and ensures that the finished product has the capacity to deliver the required outcome? We do not have that at present, and we are not learning from mistakes. For example, the difficulties that the Lord Chancellor's Department is having with the court IT systems show that exactly the same mistakes are being made yet again, and very often for exactly the same reasons.
I make a plea to the Minister that he and his colleagues in the Treasury and other Departments get their heads together and come up with a wider view than that available in the civil service. This is no disrespect to the civil service, which is extremely competent in many ways, but frankly it is clear that it has failed in this area. We need a protocol for delivery of large IT projects that does not result in abject failure almost every time. The situation of the CRB is not a success story, and no amount of spin will project it as one. A little humility on the part of the Government would be very welcome, as well as a commitment to getting it right.
2.41 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Amess. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam on obtaining this debate on this very important subject.
The only thing that surprised me in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was that his language was so moderate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome somewhat remedied that by making the sort of savage criticism of the Government that I believe to be entirely justified. Towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam quoted some criticisms of Government projects that were made by the current Foreign Secretary when he was the shadow Home Secretary. Then, of course, this disaster occurred on his watch, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out.
It is perhaps no surprise that the Minister who will respond to the debate today is not one of the Ministers who could be personally blamed for the problem, as he was appointed to the Home Office much more recently. I had hoped that we might have one of my regular sparring partners, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who has been a Home Office Minister throughout this Government's period in office.
Instead we have this Minister, who is known for his emollience. Indeed, whereas his distinguished father used to say the most extreme things in an emollient tone of voice, the Minister is known for saying emollient things in an emollient tone of voice, so it is no surprise that he is with us today. I shall listen with care to what he says. However, I do not want those slightly light-hearted remarks to undermine in any way the seriousness with which Conservatives share the concerns that were expressed in very strong terms, particularly by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, about this disaster.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam helpfully traced the history of the Criminal Records Bureau project and drew attention to his particular concerns,
114WH
which were aroused list November when Lord Falconer said that the bureau's checks on those who were to work with vulnerable auks would be suspended indefinitely. I have many care homes in my constituency, as most hon. Members do, and there are many retired people in my constituency. I share entirely the concerns of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, and I draw the same conclusion as he does that the reason for Lord Falconer's answer was that not only is the Criminal Records Bureau still a shambles, but no one in the Government seems to have much confidence that they will ever be able to sort it out. Conservative Members support all the criticisms of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Somerton and Frome.
The phrase that came to mind about the Government's track record on IT projects was that they show a complete lack of understanding of how the private sector works in negotiating contracts and obtaining the right terms. 1 share the experience described by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he was leader of a local authority and chairman of a police authority. My conclusion is that the Government suffer hugely from the fact that almost no one, at any level of ministerial job, has ever been involved in running a private sector business. The director general of the CBI recently carried out a survey from the biographies of every Minister in every Department and only three had even been involved in running any sort of private sector business. The vast majority of people who have been involved at the sharp end of negotiating such contracts, as I was in my previous professional incarnation, know that when drawing up a contract sensibly, the specifications are not changed half a dozen times midway through the process and stringent penalty clauses are applied to the private sector partner so that if something goes wrong everyone can see that it is the fault of the private sector and that the cost burden falls on that sector to put it right.
I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he said that it is an outrage that the Government use the phrase "commercial confidentiality" to try to hide what has gone wrong with the Criminal Records Bureau. I share the view that he expressed in response to my intervention. When the Public Accounts Committee reports, following the National Audit Office investigation into the disaster, the words of the PAC will almost scorch the paper. Its report will put in the shade all its previous hostile reports on the series of disasters over which the Government have presided. I believe that this will turn out to be the worst. I propose to pass the details of this debate to my hon. Friend the Member for Gains borough (Mr. Leigh)—and I suspect that one matter that the Public Accounts Committee will attack is the Government's attempt to gloss over its failures by not publishing the consultants' report or an unedited, complete version of the Carter report, as the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Somerton and Frome said.
When one looks at some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, one must query whether the Government are wise to keep returning to private sector companies that have presided over past disasters. I know from my experience when my party was in government and I worked—as you did, Mr. Amess—in a very junior capacity in a Government

115WH
Department that one problem, particularly with such matters as defence contracts but also in other Departments, is that changes are often made while a contract is under way. I recently had discussions with defence contractors in my constituency who said that the trouble with dealing with the Government is that they have no idea of what they really want and they keep changing their mind. I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same response from private sector companies in their constituencies if they have ever talked to them about the problems that they face when dealing with the Government.
I strongly echo what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about using tine expertise that is available in Parliament. He rightly referred to speakers from a professional body who give evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, of which he is a member. However, there is an even better example in the IT area in Parliament. During my 11 years in the House, I have been on the council of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. For those hon. Members who are not familiar with it, it is a unique parliamentary committee, as the industry members are treated as full members and can attend regular meetings in Committee Rooms in the House and take part in the discussions, rather than just listening or being witnesses. On a monthly basis, the Committee Rooms are full of the top IT professionals; chief executives and managing directors come to Parliament and use their IT expertise. Anyone who wants to help the Government to get out of their catalogue of IT disasters has only to use the work of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee and the expertise available. I hope that the Minister is listening to the debate and that when he returns to the Home Office he will say, "Don't you think it would be a good idea if we talked to some of the senior officers of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee and arranged to meet some of the industry leaders who come to Parliament regularly, and benefit from their expertise?"
If the Minister does only one thing as a result of the debate, I hope that he will give an undertaking to me and to the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Sutton and Cheam to listen to us and use the IT expertise already available to Parliament, through the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee or the Science and Technology Committee. That would be a positive move.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to his discussions with the Sutton Volunteer Bureau, which entirely mirrors my experience and those of other hon. Members with Surrey constituencies in talking to people in the Surrey Voluntary Services Council; its chief executive, by coincidence, is a lady called Julia Grant who used to work in the same private sector company as I did. The body is in the process of changing its title but I use the title under which it has been known for some years because it will be more familiar to anyone reading the Official Report. I am not a fan of organisations, whether companies or voluntary bodies, rebranding themselves, because it confuses everyone; everyone knew what that body was supposed to do when it was called the Surrey Voluntary Services Council. None the less, I am sure that its valuable work will continue.
116WH
Like me, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had a helpful briefing in advance of the debate from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I want to highlight one or two matters in order to help that body, which represents voluntary organisations throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will respond. The NCVO spoke of its difficulty with the umbrella registered bodies and with determining the appropriate level of disclosure and said that it would be helpful if the Government provided a back-up network of umbrella registered bodies for the voluntary sector. It stated that there should be much more thorough consultation with the voluntary sector and with others to find the most effective method of delivering such a network, and not a widespread deregistration of registered bodies, as the Government are currently planning. The NCVO also made a point that seemed to me, after discussions with voluntary bodies in my constituency, especially significant: the quality of the service provided by a registered body should be of greater significance than the number of applications that are processed—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam nods—and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
The NCVO also suggests that registered bodies should not be given the additional responsibility for checking applicants' identities and that voluntary organisations, rather than the discredited Criminal Records Bureau or Ministers, should be able to decide for themselves whether a standard or an enhanced disclosure is needed for their staff or volunteers. Although the NCVO, as a national organisation, supports an electronic option for applications, it feels that it should not be made mandatory.
I shall expand on a couple of the six main points. The NCVO stated that finding an umbrella registered body seems to be fairly haphazard, as voluntary organisations in my constituency have told me. One respondent to a national survey that the NCVO carried out on the difficulties with umbrella registered bodies contacted all the umbrella registered bodies in their area but received replies only from some. Another contacted organisations that they thought might be umbrella registered bodies only to be told that they were not. Another respondent found an umbrella registered body only through personal contacts. Another found that some umbrella registered bodies, listed as open umbrellas, had decided

"not to open whilst the system settles down",

which is obviously taking rather longer than the Government had expected. That may be the understatement of the century.
More significantly, another respondent to the NCVO survey could not afford the costs of the umbrella registered body that they found. The cost is significant. While we are on the subject of costs, all hon. Members present will know of my heavy involvement in sporting matters. I was particularly glad to receive a submission from the Central Council of Physical Recreation for use in the debate. It says that a number of sports governing bodies have registered with the CRB. Some have reported delays of a few months in getting registrations processed. When we are talking about criminal records a delay of a few months is simply unacceptable.

117WH
The CCPR states:

"Once registered a governing body must meet the ongoing administrative burden and the costs in terms of staff time, training, processing applications etc."

The CCPR has estimated that the basic administrative costs of processing a check should be £3 to £7. But costs impact greatly on smaller governing bodies, which typically have few full-time staff. The costs also impact on larger bodies, which must deal with a greater volume of applications. Governing bodies can seek the services of the so-called "open umbrella bodies" to process checks on their behalf. However, according to the CCPR,

"these are often commercial organisations that can charge up to £30 per check."

It should cost £3 to £7and yet commercial bodies charge £30. Those fees must be seen in the context of the intention to provide disclosures free for volunteers.
The limited amount of the Carter review that was published—I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the full report into that disaster must be presented to Parliament—did not fully address the issue of cost-effective access to the CRB for voluntary bodies. Instead it focused on the processing efficiency, or rather inefficiency, that we have all experienced with the CRB. Proposals to deregister organisations that process fewer than 200 checks a year could make access even more difficult. That brings me back to what the NCVO said. The quality of service rather than the number of applications should be the crucial factor.
The effect of deregistering organisations that process fewer than 200 checks a year will be to reduce the number of umbrella bodies and remove the option of registration for some smaller organisations. The CCPR is asking for specific detailed consultations not only with the wider voluntary sector, but specifically with sporting bodies. I hope that the Minister will agree to have a meeting with the CCPR. I am perfectly happy, as deputy chairman of the all-party sports group, to go with the CCPR to see the Minister about this. Having been involved in voluntary sports clubs all my adult life, I know that this has been a huge extra burden. The effect, as the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Somerton and Frome have pointed out, has been to deter people from volunteering. That is tragic.
The Government say that we have huge problems with obesity and with the health of young people, and that they want to get young people involved in healthy activity, such as sport, to take them out of the drugs subculture. However, through this CRB shambles they are deterring adults from volunteering. Those adults are the backbone of all the voluntary sports clubs, and if they do not volunteer, those sports clubs cannot be run.
Bagshot cricket club, for example, which is in my constituency, and with which I and two of my now adult sons have been involved, has managed to set up a successful colt structure, despite the difficulties of the CRB. However, it has found that a number of people who wanted to work with young people have been deterred from getting involved because of the CRB bureaucracy. That point has been made to me at meetings, and I know that that is replicated throughout the country in sports clubs and other voluntary bodies. The decline in volunteering is no surprise, because the Government have presided over this complete shambles.
118WH
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said that we in Parliament are entitled to know on behalf of our constituents the basis of any renegotiation with Capita. That is vital, and I have no doubt that the National Audit Office will agree. We must see the Government's proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill relating to the CRB as soon as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a danger that other Departments, such as the Lord Chancellor's Department, will make the same mistakes if we do not learn from this shambles.
There were problems with IT procurement in health and in defence. There was the complete disaster of the skills issue in the Department for Education and Skills. Only a day or two ago, in the Chamber, the shambles of the Treasury and the child tax credits was highlighted. Almost everything that the Government touch concerning IT and national schemes has been a disaster.
Although this Minister is always emollient, he must accept that his own Department, perhaps before his time, presided over the complete disaster of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the shambles in the asylum system and the Passport and Records Agency. The Government must finally learn the lessons from all those disasters. I hope that we will hear something positive from the Minister, who at least escapes personal blame, although the same cannot be said of his ministerial colleagues. They caused this disaster—it happened on their watch—and that is not good enough.
3.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on having secured today's debate, and on the genuine and close personal interest that he takes in the work of the CRB. I also congratulate him on the full description that he gave of the process through which we have gone in trying to make the CRB work successfully. It:.s an important issue, and I am grateful that he has given us the opportunity for the debate, and given me the chance to respond to the points that have been raised.
I am sorry that my presence is not what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was hoping for. However, I shall, emollient or otherwise, do my best not to disappoint in responding to his remarks.
Everyone accepts the case for the establishment of the CRB and the need for the service that it provides. It was set up to provide an important new service, which is part of a larger range of measures designed to improve the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. That is why it exists, why it is important to ensure that it works effectively, and why we are having this debate.
It is important to note, in passing, that since the introduction of the CRB, many private sector employers and voluntary organisations have, for the first time, been able to access information from police records and other data sources, and many staff in the statutory sector whose posts did not meet the criteria for the old police checks system have been brought within the scope of checks conducted by the CRB. As ever, the information that the CRB provides is intended not to be a substitute for the other good practice that employers

119WH
should undertake in deciding whom to recruit, but to assist in safe recruitment decisions in the interests of the people to whom those employed will provide a service.
Let us be honest: everyone—including the Home Affairs Committee, following the short review that it undertook in 2001ߞrecognised that the task of establishing the CRB would be complex and challenging. In recognition of that, in advance of the commencement of live operations, additional phases were built into the timetable to try to test the arrangements fully.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam described very fully what happened in the event, and I do not need to dwell on that. Suffice it to say that there were problems in getting the information from application forms efficiently. The output was below expectations and there were backlogs of accumulated forms. There were delays. We have heard about the particular problems that occurred towards the end of the summer and around the start of the new school year, and I acknowledge the disappointment that those waiting to get on with the job, to whom the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred, felt when they could not do so because the system was not responding as it should.
In one sense I have been here before, because the first debate that I undertook as a Home Office Minister was on the Criminal Records Bureau, in this very Chamber. I remember that the first thing that I said in that debate, having familiarised myself with what had gone on, was an apology for the fact that the system was not working correctly and was not good enough. We needed to make that apology. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also made that clear last September when he said that the performance of the CRB up I o that point had been unacceptable. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made a very fair point about the problems with IT systems that the Government have experienced in trying to make large-scale projects work. I would observe in passing simply that that is not unique to the current Government elected in 1997. The problem has been going on for much longer.
Steps have been taken, such as the establishment of the Office of Government Commerce and the gateway process, to try to address the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Front made so forcefully about learning from experience. Thinking of my other responsibilities in the Home Office and my direct experience of the work of the OGC process and the gateway system, I can say that I hope that that work is helping us to deal with some of the legitimate questions that have been raised about processes and systems. No doubt when the National Audit Office inquiry reports, there will be much for us to consider as a Government and as Members of the House.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked whether the original system met the specification set out by the Home Office. The answer is no, but that was not apparent from the tests prior to the launch, and we learned then what the consequences were.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the revised targets and business plan would be published. The CRB business plan for 2003-04 will be published in May and
120WH
will include performance targets. The question of insurance liability has been raised with us, and we have invited the voluntary sector to provide further information on it. I am advised that we are still waiting for that. That will enable us to examine the matter with the Association of British Insurers.
The question was raised of enhanced disclosure certificates in cases where soft information that led to non-appointment had not been disclosed. In the vast majority of cases in which there is soft intelligence, that will appear on the face of the disclosure and so will be available to the individual. Only in very rare and exceptional cases—where showing the information or disclosure would be contrary to the interests of crime detection and prevention—will such information be provided separately to the registered body. However—I hope that this offers the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam the reassurance that he seeks—the advice produced by the CRB is very clear: an employer should never rely on an existing enhanced disclosure offered by an individual but should always check with the previous registered body whether there was other information. That is the clear guidance given to employers, and if they follow it, the situation about which the hon. Gentleman rightly expressed concern will not arise.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister, before moving swiftly on, suggested that when the Government set up the contract with Capita, there was no requirement for any performance targets at all. How can it be possible, given all the experience of several previous Governments of both parties, that in this day and age there could be a contract with a private sector provider without any performance targets? Will he look into who on earth made such a daft decision?
Hilary Benn: I do not recollect saying that when the CRB was established there were no performance targets at all. Indeed, performance standards and other things were part of the arrangements. I was trying to answer the specific question that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked, which was about when the revised targets and business plan would be published.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister confirm that when those are published, they will include a recasting of the financial forecasts and the demand forecasts for the next few years?
Hilary Benn: I will need to check before I answer that specific question, as I would not like to mislead the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him.
On the Carter report, the Government have published its recommendations and our response. The simple reason why the rest of it has not been published is that it came in the form of advice to Ministers, with a range of options. As all hon. Members know, advice to Ministers is not published. The essential elements of the report, however, have been set out, both in the summary that was published and the written statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid on 22 February 2003. However, I will undertake to investigate whether there is any possibility of the French Thornton report being released in part or in whole.
We intend to table amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill as soon as possible—that is not a fatuous but a factual answer. We will carefully consider responses to

121WH
the consultation paper. It is perhaps not desirable that the end of the consultation period and the opportunity to make legislative change are so close together, but we will take on board what we can from the consultation process and let hon. Members know as soon as possible the nature of the amendments.
Paper-based applications will continue for the time being. However, as we have said, in the longer term we hope to migrate to the electronic channel, and it will be a matter of judgment as to how that process is undertaken.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath echoed the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the importance of drawing on the House's expertise in IT. I gladly undertake to pass that on to my ministerial colleagues who lead on IT procurement. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would meet representatives of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. If that would be helpful, I would be delighted to meet them and have discussions, which for understandable reasons are of great importance to him.
I shall turn to the improvements that have been made since we had the opportunity to debate the CRB in July last year. They have demonstrated the benefits of the close working that has taken place between the agency and Capita, registered bodies and police forces. In September, a plan was put in place to increase staffing, and to introduce longer operational hours and revised operating procedures. As I suggested when we debated the CRB last time, one of the major problems had been the need to return some application forms to those from whom they originated, because they had not been fully or accurately completed. Changed arrangements were introduced under the improvement plan to enable those cases to be identified at a much earlier stage so that applications could be returned to obtain the information and then sent back to the CRB. The problem that had arisen through inefficient capture of the data was resolved by outsourcing work to a company in India. That was carefully done, visits were paid, and it has proved to be successful and of great assistance. The real test, however, is that it led to improvements in the CRB's output.
Mr. Hawkins: I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what discussions he has had with trade unions about the outsourcing of some of the work. Various Opposition and Government Members recently attended an all-party insurance and financial services group meeting at which we spoke with union leaders, who were concerned about call centre and IT outsourcing and about the fact that this country is losing jobs that are going abroad. That is clearly of great importance to UK citizens, and perhaps he could shed some light on the matter.
Hilary Benn: The answer to the specific question whether I have had any discussions with trade unions is no. On the wider point about employment in the UK, more people are at work in this country than at any other time. I spent 23 years of my working life in the trade union movement, and I have to say that the Government's record on employment, the creation of jobs and the reduction of unemployment bears comparison with that of any Government in a long time. We can be proud of that.
122WH
The key point, and what has changed since I last responded to a debate on the Criminal Records Bureau, is that since October the average number of disclosures issued each week is. 40,000, compared with a weekly average of 24,500 in August. That is more than double the weekly average number of police checks made under the previous arrangements by the 43 forces in England and Wales. For all the difficulties, of which we are aware, the CRB is performing now at twice the rate of the old system. Many more checks are being done and much more reassurance is being offered about the suitability of people who are being given jobs. That is undoubtedly an improvement on what happened before. The total volume has increased markedly.
To date, more than 1.5 million disclosures have been issued, new applications are dealt with in less than five weeks, on average, and currently more than 90 per cent. of standard disclosures and more than 70 per cent. of enhanced disclosures are issued in three weeks. That is a real improvement and there has been real progress since we had a debate in this very Chamber in July last year. It would be wrong, not to say churlish, not to recognise the problems that were faced and acknowledge the hard work that was done by all the people who tried to do something about the situation.
For all the points that have been made about how we got to where we were—those are important, and we must learn from them—the most important thing is that, having established the CRB, we should work hard to ensure that its performance improves. That is precisely what has happened through the work of the past few months.
There was also a problem with old applications that had become lodged in the system. Those were a source of frustration to everyone: the Government, the CRB and customers. That is why the CRB has been giving those as much priority as possible. In the past three months, the number of outstanding applications that are more than six weeks old has been reduced from more than 70,000 to about 16,000—that is a huge backlog clearance. The CRB aims to eradicate by June the backlog of applications that are more than six weeks old; that will amount to enormous progress and it will be the result of much hard work.
The independent review team was established by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider what further steps might be taken. Its report was published in February, and a summary is in the Library, together with his written statement.
Mr. Heath: On the areas of the report that the Minister is not able to publish, he said clearly that that was because options were presented to Ministers. I accept that principle, although I do not agree with it. Will he give an assurance that there are no areas in this sad and sorry tale that will not be made public solely because of commercial sensitivity assumed on the part of Capita or Her Majesty's Government?
Hilary Benn: No, I cannot give that assurance, because there are commercial confidentiality clauses in some contracts; that is nothing new. I hear the question that has been asked about how we balance those requirements—which are standard in both Government and private sector contracts—with the legitimate point

123WH
made about the need to understand what has been going on. In response to the specific questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and others about the contract, the Government's position has been that commercial confidentiality prevents us from providing that information.
Mr. Hawkins: I have a slight scepticism about this subject. When the Minister responded to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, he said that he could not produce some information because it had been put in the form of advice to Ministers. I have a dark suspicion that those doing the review might have been asked to put it in that form so that the Minister had an excuse for not publishing it. Am I being too sceptical?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great regard, is being a bit too sceptical. As he will know, Ministers seek advice all the time on a wide range of issues. That is how Governments—not only this one—operate. It is widely recognised that one needs the space to think about various options put before one before reaching decisions, without everything being exposed to the public gaze. The essential point in relation to the Carter review is that the recommendations were published. The Government, having considered and weighed up the various options, have made clear what they propose to do.
On the deferment of the mandatory checks, the honest answer, as hon. Members will know, is that when one is in difficulty, one should not add to it. That is why the decision was taken—sensibly, I think—not to add to the work load with the considerable additional work that those mandatory checks would require. Everyone recognises the importance of returning to the mandatory checks as quickly as possible. We are now completing double the number of checks made under the old system. That is an improvement, but we want to do more.
It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the decision to defer the checks, as everyone will be aware. Clearly, we regret that it was necessary to do that, but it was undoubtedly the right thing to do, because in all truth one cannot on the one hand say that the Criminal Records Bureau is not able to deal with its work load as efficiently as we would like, and on the other add to that load at the very time that we are trying to sort it out. The sensible thing to do was to defer those checks, as we have done, and to put in place the measures that we have introduced in order to improve the performance. The benefit of that has been demonstrated in the figures that I have just reported; there has been real improvement.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed at the time of the deferment that it was a temporary measure. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked what the future prospects were. When the Home Secretary announced the deferment, he said that checks on existing staff in care homes would be required during 2004—that remains our intention—and that other mandatory checks would be instituted as soon as possible. We are now working with colleagues to plan the phased introduction of mandatory checks as soon as we are confident that the Criminal Records Bureau has
124WH
the capacity to carry them out. It is important that I place that on record, because the point was raised by more than one hon. Member.
Mr. Burstow: It would therefore be helpful, as the Minister cannot elaborate on a timetable for the institution of the checks, if he could give some idea of the timetable for ensuring that the system has the capacity to allow the Department to bring on stream the extra checks. We need to know the timetable for the implementation of the Carter recommendations—both those that refer to legislative matters, and those that refer to the IT fixes that still clearly need to be made.
Hilary Benn: We have already discussed the legislative changes, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are seeking to make those changes as soon as possible, using the currently available legislative vehicle. I cannot say at this stage exactly what the timetable will be, because it will be the outcome of the process that he described of weighing the capacity and the work load and fitting the two together. The clear objective is to get back on track, having had the necessary interval—if I may use that word—to enable the CRB to improve its performance. which is exactly what it has done, as should be recognised.
We are working on several changes that have arisen from the Carter report. An important point was made about the role of umbrella bodies in the process. We must recognise that a balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, the capacity of those organisations to undertake the checks sufficiently and, in particular, to pick up the additional requirements that we have consulted about placing on them—a result of the independent review—and, on the other hand, the throughput. That is relevant to the amount that has to be charged for the amount of work that they will be undertaking, as hon. Members will understand.
I heard the arguments about not wanting small organisations to be part of the system. I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made a reference in passing to availability. When I responded to the debate in July last year, there were 1,075 umbrella bodies, and now there are 1,474. The number of organisations to which people can turn to enable checks to he made has increased substantially, and that is a testament to the success of the concept of umbrella bodies, but a balance must be struck if we are to deal with cost.
Having listened to the debate, I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that, notwithstanding the difficulties of which we are all aware and which have been highlighted today and in the previous debate, real progress has been made in sorting out the problem that arose. It is important to acknowledge those people who work hard day in, day out to ensure that the system works effectively. They do not want to go to work each day and consider that the service that they provided in the past to their customers was not of the standard that they would want.
We must recognise that the sensible steps that we have taken have enabled real progress to be made. It is important that that approach is maintained and sustained. The experience of the past six months has demonstrated the Criminal Records Bureau's capacity

125WH
to increase its output to meet the requirements of the service improvement plan. Having instituted the Carter review, considered the recommendations and decided on the way forward, we hope that further improvements will be made so that the CRB can look forward to the future with confidence.
Mr. Burstow: May I press the Minister further on how the costs of putting the CRB right will be met? There is now a real fear that there will he a substantial increase in the charges. A figure of £35 has been mooted as a possible level for the fees for disclosures in future. Can he confirm that that is nowhere near what it will be, but that the figures will be around the level of the retail prices index, and not substantially more?
Hilary Benn: I cannot confirm figures now because they are currently under review. The cost recovery framework and the objectives under which the Criminal Records Bureau operates are clearly laid down, and the hon. Gentleman described them accurately in his opening speech. We are currently considering what the fees will be, and our decision will be based on the volume of work, the timetable, the need and so on. We will have to await the outcome of that process.
In conclusion, I must say that I have appreciated the opportunity to respond to the debate. It is an important issue. We have made real progress, but more must be done.

Education Funding (Poole)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of Poole local education authority and Poole schools at what has proved to be an opportune time. I should declare that I am currently a Poole councillor—although not for much longer—and that my daughter teaches in a Poole school, but to the best of my knowledge her job is not at risk.
In my role as a councillor, I was chair of education for Poole when it first became a unitary authority in 1997, and I wish to spend a few minutes setting the scene. Poole's schools had previously come under Dorset county council, and there is a long-standing record of underfunding, in both capital and revenue terms. Dorset used to be proud to boast that it was a debt-free authority, and it used to recycle its basic credit approvals to district councils, which—to be fair—did help to support social housing, but did nothing to address the state of school buildings. In 1997. Poole had two secondary schools whose science and technology facilities were akin to those provided to the school that I attended in the 1960s. In one of those schools, special needs provision was located in a poorly converted cloakroom area.
The Minister recently said to me during Education questions that he thought that I would be thanking the Government for this year's capital investment programme of £13 million for Poole's schools—and I do, from my heart. Generations of children in Poole have been educated in substandard buildings and with inferior equipment. particularly in the two pyramids that are now receiving attention. Without the current Government's commitment to education, I do not believe that the improvements in buildings in Poole's schools would have been made. However, there is still more to do, and more funding is needed.
I remember that in the 1980s—before the introduction of standard spending assessments—the then political administration used to boast about the academic results that were achieved in Dorset with some of the lowest spending in the country. Because it is a large rural county, there were high costs in keeping many rural schools open, and I believe that Poole's schools were starved of funds and that that historic low spend led to the low education standard spending assessments that all authorities in Dorset were given.
It was therefore welcomed as good news that the Government were reviewing the formula that determined those standard spending assessments. However, the outcome of the review is that Poole has fallen from being the 137th worst-funded authority to the 145th worst-funded. Inevitably, there will always be gainers and losers in any review, but it seems particularly harsh that an already low-funded authority should be pushed further down the scale. Poole is protected by the floor this year, so unless changes are made there will be even worse news in years ahead. The morale of head teachers and all school staff has been dealt a devastating blow.

127WH
Poole LEA has recently been awarded 4 out of 4 for education in its comprehensive performance assessment, and it has also received a good Ofsted report. I wish to quote from that report, which was published in January 2002:

"The Standard Spending Assessment is extremely low by national standards. Education has been designated as the highest priority by the council and has been funded slightly above SSA for the last 2 years."

I will return to that point.

"High levels of delegation mean that individual budgets are close to national norms, but some central services are thinly staffed."

I think that the Minister should return the congratulations.
I have another quote:

"Poole's education SSA is below unitary authorities' and statistical neighbours' averages and overall the sixth lowest for the primary and secondary sectors in England. However, its spending since local government reorganisation has increased in real terms from 98.6 per cent. SSA to 101 per cent. in 2001/2002. In 2001/2002 the SSA per secondary pupil for Poole was £2992, the Unitary Authority average £3262, and for statistical neighbours £3159."

Parents, teachers, local residents, MPs and councillors cannot understand why Poole's children are valued at nearly £300 per secondary pupil less than their neighbours.
In the LEA's Ofsted report, the Government's inspection team ranked the funding available to the LEA for strategy for school improvement as 7, a very low grade, whereas value for money of services to support school improvement was graded at 3. The LEA is playing its part well, but clearly more support is needed from the Government.
Poole is a small education authority. In 1997 it inherited an unusual situation, in that four of its seven secondary schools were grant maintained—more than 70 per cent. of secondary school pupils were in GM schools—leaving the borough's three secondary modern schools under the control of the LEA. The prime motivation for applying for GM status was to improve the financial status of the schools. Although I was personally deeply opposed to GM schools, I could understand the motivation, given the extremely low level of funding for our schools.
Those circumstances led to a very divided education community, as one can imagine, with the GM schools having healthy school balances, but with Poole LEA inheriting a situation in which the schools balances added up to just £26,000 overall. I believe that one half of the LEA schools were running deficit budgets. All three of the LEA secondary modern schools were in great need of capital investment, two because of the age of the buildings and the third to provide better for a growing school population.
Since 1997, overall school balances have increased, and ironically, a problem identified in the LEA's Ofsted report is their high level. Perversely, the district auditor continues to identify that as a weakness in his reports. I mention that because I hope that the Minister will deal with it. Last year, the school balances were in the range of £4 million to £5 million, which is too high in relation to the LEA's overall budget of some £50 million. It is
128WH
important to note that relatively few schools hold large balances. The foundation schools accounted for £1.5 million at the end of March 2002.
My personal belief is that although the LEA has worked hard to achieve a successful relationship with the majority of foundation schools—that was very difficult, as the former GM schools had to readjust to lower funding levels—there is still a feeling among some of them that they are independent of the LEA. In addition, given the historic low funding, there is still an understandable caution among many head teachers, and there are instances of schools saving up to make the most of match funding.
I believe that the education scrutiny committee is not working as well as it might—that point was identified in the Ofsted report—and that it must bear in mind that money held idle is not being spent on the current generation of schoolchildren. However, some head teachers have told me that they are just getting by on this year's settlement because of their reserves, but that the future is grim. That is what today's debate is about.
I have case studies of 30 schools and shall quote just a few points from them:

"We would be running a deficit of £30,000…lost 1.5 Teaching Assistants."

"We anticipate running a deficit of £40–45,000 on the 2003/4 budget…training will be very limited…temporary teaching contracts will not be renewed."

"As a result of cutting back hard on books, equipment…staff training …strategic development, I am taking a budget to the governors which only recommends a deficit of £25,000."

Obviously, I could go on with those at great length, but I have much more to say to the Minister.
How did the situation arise? In December 2002, the Government said that the per pupil increase for Poole would be 4.3 per cent., far below the English average. I believe that the Minister has now accepted that Poole's actual increase was only 3.5 per cent., when one takes on board the cut in the standards grant. However, the increase is on a low base and is obviously insufficient to cover the increased costs, which have been clearly identified by many others, in national insurance contributions, teachers' salaries and pensions.
Based on Government figures, the position of Poole's education funding has significantly worsened. The gaps have widened. By comparison with the average level of funding, Poole is £47 worse off. The gap was £293; it is now £340. That is equivalent to £900,000, which would be a very useful sum for the authority. Poole is £103 worse off than the best-funded and £49 worse off than the worst-funded authority.
From the perspective of Poole parents, governors and teachers, the new education funding system appears no better, no more equitable and no more easily understood, and now a widening funding gap exists between Poole and other authorities. A particular problem with the application of the new formula is that Poole and Dorset have relatively low-wage economies but high house prices. In the Ofsted report for the LEA, the inspectors commented that

"the borough is relatively prosperous and the cost of housing is high. There are pockets of deprivation. Unemployment is well below national averages but this makes a low wage economy generally."

129WH
Poole has high average house prices. A recent survey has placed Poole at No. 14 in a list of places most expensive to buy a home by comparison with average wages in the area. That means that more has to be offered to public sector workers to attract them to Poole in the first place. Poole and all Dorset authorities are losing out from resource equalisation and not benefiting from area cost adjustment. I request that in reviewing the impact of the new formula, the Government give urgent consideration to the effect of high house prices combined with a relatively low-wage economy outside the public sector.
Mr. Robert Syms: I congratulate my neighbour in Poole on securing this important debate. I assure her that those of a different political persuasion—and those of none—fully support the powerful case that she is making for a better deal for our borough's parents and children.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
A further local issue is that many of Poole's schools have a relatively high proportion of experienced staff, which is really good, but they are more costly in terms of salary and making up the shortfall on their threshold payments. Poole is a beautiful place to live and work.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills was speaking at a major conference in Bournemouth last week, and I want to spend my remaining time addressing some of the issues that he raised. First, I am reliably told that Poole did send its completed section 52 form ahead of time. Secondly, a large sum of money has not been held back in balances as far as Poole is concerned. I am told that about £180,000, or 0.3 per cent., is held simply as a contingency.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State mentioned that perhaps some areas with low council tax should increase it. Poole has put up council tax more than necessary because it has passported an extra £227,000. A political battle is going on out there right now, and the current council is blamed for the high level of council tax increase. It is difficult to increase council tax, even if it is low, because that impacts on pensioners and people with low incomes.
We also have to deal with deprivation. The Ofsted inspectors mentioned pockets of deprivation. Surprisingly, in two wards in my constituency, more than 30 per cent. of 0 to 14-year-olds live in households receiving benefit. The situation is highly variable. In my ward, that figure stands at 2.3 per cent. Relative deprivation is quite a problem. One head teacher told me:

"I have taught in London boroughs and we were all in the same boat."

That is quite a significant point.
The local authority has not diverted money to capital spending. It assures me that it has put all the special needs money into schools, and I really cannot find any of the faults that the Secretary of State was suggesting that other authorities might have. Another head teacher put it to me that there are many Government initiatives, but when they are stripped away the core funding is relatively low. The Minister needs to bear in mind the question of whether the core funding is high enough to provide basic education for an authority as lowly
130WH
funded as Poole. It has relatively expensive teachers. There is a basic cost to education, and because Poole does not qualify for various pots of money, funding is too low.
We also have a further expense, of which I am really very proud. In Poole there are three excellent schools for children with disabilities. The Minister may well have heard of the Victoria school, which is obviously nationally famous. Not surprisingly, such schools attract families with children who have special needs to live in the borough. I would not want that any other way.
I am aware that Poole is just one of many local authorities where head teachers are concerned about the impact of this year's settlement. Poole works closely with its schools, parents and governors. No one believes that the authority has a secret hoard of cash or is diverting money for other purposes. One head teacher observed to me:

"I simply believe that a mistake has been made as far as Poole is concerned."

Another head teacher, as I mentioned earlier, wondered about core funding. In the speech in Bournemouth, the Secretary of State said that

"these changes do mean that each child now attracts the same level of basic funding wherever they live".

It really comes down to whether that basic level of funding is enough, given the special characteristics of an attractive area.
The schools and the LEA have major challenges ahead. For example, they have to make faster progress in improving key stage 2 results. The tight funding situation means that options for action to meet the challenges are limited. Far worse, after years of hard work obtaining excellent results on a shoestring, and a taste of life getting better, this year's settlement has devastated our teachers. All associated with Poole's schools are despondent. I trust that the Government will make it a matter of urgency to address their concerns. The Minister has agreed to a special meeting and I hope that my speech has persuaded him to have that meeting in Poole so that he can see what it is like at the chalk face in one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country. In Poole and the rest of Dorset, we need a better deal for our children.
3.46 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): May I say what a pleasure it is to be under your careful guidance, Mr. Amess? I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and welcome the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms).
I have only tentative family links to Poole. Some of my extended family spend large parts of their holiday there and insist that is a wonderful place. They do a large amount of water-skiing and other water sports. The offer of a ministerial trip to Poole is, needless to say, extremely tempting. However, I must balance that offer with equally tempting—or sometimes not equally tempting—invitations to visit other parts of the country.
I understand the hon. Lady's personal commitment to the education service and I should like to respond to some of her points. She mentioned one point in passing,

131WH
relating to her personal link with the teaching profession in Poole. I am sure that we all want to recognise the enormous efforts that teachers, head teachers and governors throughout the country have made to raise educational standards. The fruits of those efforts in Poole are noteworthy and should be put on the record.
I asked the Department to dig cut the figures. They focus on the primary changes in Poole over the past five or six years and are striking. Since 1998, the proportion of young people leaving primary school in Poole who are doing well in English has risen from 64 to 73 per cent. In maths, the figure has risen from 54 to 67 per cent., and in science, the figure has risen from 67 to 85 per cent. At a time when many people are only too ready to disparage the teaching profession—sometimes even those who represent the teaching profession—I am sure that Members across the House would say that that is good evidence of improvement and that we are all committed to seeing that improvement followed through in the secondary sector, in which there are big challenges at age 14 through to school leaving at 18. I hope that the improvements in primary schools can be translated into improvements in the secondary sector.
The funding picture is striking in a number of ways. I am certainly not going to argue with the hon. Lady about whether Poole is the 145th or the 143rd lowest ranked authority for funding. There is a small disagreement between the statisticians at the LEA and the statisticians at the Department over that. I do not want to quibble about it. The context is that between 1997–98 and 2002–03 Poole's education spending assessment increased by more than £13 million, as the hon. Lady said, but education formula spending is only part of the picture. The standards fund increase, to which the hon. Lady also referred, has risen from about £600,000 in 1997 to £4 million this year, although 1 recognise that certain issues, to which I shall return, apply this year. The school standards grant, which goes directly to schools without going through the formula and recognises pupil numbers—regardless of the spread of LEAs to which the hon. Lady referred—has risen to £1.5 million. Capital funding has also increased.
The focus of the hon. Lady's comments was on the situation this year and the changes that have come about from reform of the local government finance system. I should address that substantively. It is worth saying at the outset that Poole receives the amount that it does because of the characteristics of its pupils. The process involves scientific census and careful work, and involves no judgment by Ministers or anyone else. Poole, notwithstanding pockets of deprivation, is a less deprived authority. The percentage of children whose families are on income support is about 15 per cent. compared with a national average of more than 20 per cent. On the working families tax credit, I was pleased that the hon. Lady referred to the issues raised about the education of children from low-wage families. In Poole the proportion is just below the national average at 17.5 per cent. compared with 19 per cent., and I hope that she will understand in a moment why the changes to the system recognise, at least in one respect, the challenges of education for children whose parents are in low-wage employment.
132WH
As the Secretary of State said in Bournemouth, we believe that similar pupils in different parts of the country should have the same amount of money attached to them by central Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady does not dispute that different pupils have different needs and that that must be recognised, preferably in a simple way, as we have tried to do. We can say with confidence that similar pupils, whether they live in Poole or in my constituency of South Shields, have the same amount of money attached to them; I shall try to explain why.
We all agree that the old funding system needed to be changed. It was based on the 1991 census, which is out of date; it included a number of capricious elements, not least a failure to recognise the division of responsibilities between LEAs and schools; and it was widely seen to be unfair. The new system is based on three simple elements. The first is a basic entitlement-the hon. Lady did not use this language, but referred to a quorum entitlement—of £2,005 per primary school pupil and £2,567 per secondary school pupil. Secondly, there is a top-up for deprivation and additional educational needs. Thirdly, there is recognition that some areas face particularly high costs for recruitment and retention of teachers. In the development of that new three-part system we received valuable help from LEAs throughout the country, including those such as Poole, which, I believe, is one of the smaller authorities.
Sometimes people worry that Government consultation is just a matter of form and that nothing comes out of it. One specific change that was not foreshadowed in the run-up to the review of local government funding was the recognition that small authorities face a particular challenge. In the final announcement of the conclusions of the review, we established a £400,000 grant for running costs for all small LEAs in recognition that they face particular challenges. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that that is a good example of a minority of LEAs with a particular interest making their voices heard. Central Government listened and recognised the problems that they faced in running such local authority services. I know that she did not have time to say so in her speech, but I hope that she agrees that that is a good step forward and that authorities such as Poole are not penalised because of their relatively small size. That important improvement was brought about by the work of the education funding strategy group, largely populated by representatives of local education authorities and teacher representatives.
There is a core entitlement for every child and recognition of additional needs. It is worth dwelling on that for a moment, as the hon. Lady did. The old system used data on pupil characteristics from 1991 as the basis for distributing funding for additional educational needs. That included children of lone parents, who got special amounts of money, and children of parents who were born abroad. It used information about children from families in receipt of income support, too. The idea was that authorities with significant numbers of children in those categories spent more on education in 1991 and therefore will need to spend more in future. That was obviously an inadequate way of distributing money.
In the new system, there have been some significant changes, which are not just simplification. I shall dwell first on the definition of poverty that the hon. Lady mentioned. We agree that children whose families are on

133WH
income support or who are unemployed face special challenges. There was a big debate in Government and education circles about whether the recognition of poverty through income support should be supplemented by a recognition of the challenges for children whose parents are on the working families tax credit. Although Poole is not above the national average for the number of children whose parents are in relatively low-wage work, the hon. Lady is right to say that it is a high-employment area, but not necessarily a high-wage employment area. The recognition in the new funding formula of the needs of children whose parents are on the working families tax credit is a structural change that will be of long-term benefit to places such as Poole when they keep employment up. Even if that employment is not in high-wage work, they will get the benefits in the formula.
There is also recognition of the challenges involved in educating children who speak English as a second language. Poole benefits less than many other authorities from that factor for additional educational needs because it has about I per cent. of pupils with English as a second language or from a low-achieving ethnic minority group, compared with a national average of about 9 per cent. That is another reason why the funding formula produces the changes outlined.
To complete the picture, the third element of the funding formula relates to the extra costs of hiring teachers, especially in areas where recruitment and retention is particularly difficult. We tried to take account of the point that the hon. Lady made, that it is not only the obvious places such as London and the south-east that face recruitment and retention pressures. Under the old system, 51 local education authorities had their additional costs recognised. I am pleased for hon. Members on both sides of the House that the number of LEAs that we are able to recognise has increased to 99 from 51; the bad news for the hon. Lady is that Poole is not one of them, because the result of the investigation of wage rates did not make Poole one of the top 99 authorities for extra costs.
I heard what the hon. Lady said about housing and I take it very seriously. As she knows, in our consultation document issued last summer, two of the options used housing and two used instead the general employment
134WH
measure, which is a measure of wages. In the course of the discussion about that consultation paper, the overwhelming body of evidence was not just that the general employment measure was a more sensitive indicator to use; it was also the strong view that it was more accurate. On that basis we took the decision to follow the rest of Government in using the general employment measure as our indicator of relative costs throughout the country. I hear what the hon. Lady has said on the matter and I shall bear in mind her point about housing, because we have tried to consider it.
I conclude by saying that I appreciate that any year in which there are major changes in the local authority funding system is a year of uncertainty, in which the changes that are under way need to be considered.
The hon. Lady talked about the positive working relationship that exists between schools and the LEA, notwithstanding Ofsted's report that the LEA school improvement services are not necessarily all that she or others would want. I am pleased to hear about that positive relationship.
The Secretary of State made it clear that, once the purdah restrictions of the local elections are out of the way, we want to encourage every LEA and every school that is now feeling the pinch to engage in a constructive dialogue about some important issues that arise from the submission of the so-called section 52 returns from the LEAs. There is significant evidence that about £500 million is not being withheld by LEAs from schools, but is money that they have still to allocate to schools. We are anxious that schools do not take decisions on the basis of a provisional budget comparable to last year's budgetary outturn when more money is coming to them. We will encourage schools to have a careful dialogue with their LEA about the full budgetary outturn. There are also significant issues about the amount of the schools budget that is not being passed on to headmasters, headmistresses and head teachers around the country, whether that money is going on special needs or other factors. The hon. Lady also referred to money that is being transferred from revenue into capital. Those issues will be out in the open as of Friday. I very much hope that they will lead to a serious dialogue at local level, not only in Poole, but throughout the country.

Financial Services Industry
4 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome the opportunity to say something today about the financial services industry. Given that this is a short debate, I intend to concentrate on how it affects Scotland, and Edinburgh in particular, where it is the major private sector employer in my constituency. I should declare a couple of interests at this stage. First, I am a board member of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, which has recently received some support from Co-operative Financial Services, and also in a voluntary capacity I am the chair of the parliamentary contact group for Scottish Financial Enterprise, which is the umbrella body for all the leading companies and firms in the Scottish financial sector. Indeed, I am indebted to Scottish Financial Enterprise for providing me with briefing material for this debate, which presents a very positive picture of the state of the financial services industry in Scotland.
That positive picture of an important part of the economy in. Scotland contrasts with the picture of gloom that some of the doomsayers have been trying to paint, no doubt for their own purposes in the run-up to tomorrow's elections for the Scottish Parliament. It is worth emphasising the importance of the financial services industry to the Scottish economy as well as the economy of the UK as a whole. It is a large industry and it is a major contributor to wealth and employment.
A study undertaken in 2000 by the respected Fraser of Allander Institute for Scottish Financial Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise estimated that the sector directly employs or supports more than 180,000 full-time equivalent employees in Scotland, which is 10 per cent. of all FTE employment in Scotland. Significantly, it is also one of the fastest growing sectors of the Scottish economy: over the past eight years output from financial services companies in Scotland has grown by approximately 50 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. for the Scottish economy as a whole. The sector has also been growing faster in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, expanding at more than twice the rate of the sector in the whole country.
What may be of particular interest for the debate held here at Westminster is that the Scottish financial services industry, which has been recognised as one of the leading industries in Europe, has in recent years moved into an even more prominent position compared with its European rivals and competitors. Scotland—that means predominantly Edinburgh and Glasgow, although there are other important centres for the industry, such as Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Dunfermline and Stirling, to name just a few—is the sixth largest equity management centre in Europe.
Scotland is also sixth in Europe in terms of the life and pension funds managed. In January 2002, Scotland came out in the survey as the number six banking centre in Europe, behind London, Switzerland, Spain, Germany and Italy, but ahead of France, Belgium, all the Scandinavian countries and Ireland. What is even more remarkable is that Scotland no longer has the sixth position in Europe as a banking centre. A few months ago SFE updated its survey. It found that Scotland is not sixth, fifth, fourth, or even third, but is now the
136WH
second most important banking centre in the whole of Europe, behind only London in its European and international importance. Indeed the chief executive of SFE tells me that when his survey reached that conclusion, he was so surprised he thought he had better check his figures, so he collected the figures afresh from another source and ran the calculation again, achieving the same result, confirming that Scotland was indeed the second centre in Europe. Those figures are impressive and show how that industry has benefited from the stable economic platform that has been established in the UK by the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Treasury.
However, we also need to remember that the benefits of that positive performance are not restricted to just a few high fliers in the financial industry. The financial services sector has been growing at four times the rate of the Scottish economy as a whole, and therefore has made a contribution to jobs that has helped to keep the Scottish unemployment rate at its lowest level for many decades. We know from individual case studies that many people made redundant from the microchip plants of Motorola, or NEC in West Lothian, near Edinburgh, have found jobs in financial companies.
The latest figures show employment in the banks, building societies, insurance companies and fund managers at 99,000. Such employment has been increasing annually since 1996, and it is now one of the most significant contributors to the general prosperity of the Scottish economy.
The financial services industry in Scotland is important in the nation's economic success, and in particular in ensuring secure employment, and it is therefore vital to create the conditions to ensure that it continues to prosper. It is also essential that we reject any political and economic experiments that would gamble with the livelihoods of so many people in Scotland, and especially in Edinburgh, about which I am particularly concerned. I will therefore mention an opportunity for further growth that is now within the reach of the Scottish financial industry but requires Government action if it is to be grasped fully. I will also speak about a peril that now faces the industry. I hope that the Minister will address those two points in his response.
Although England is overwhelmingly the largest market outside Scotland for Scottish financial products and services, in the past 10 years most Scottish financial companies have begun to sell into individual European markets, either directly or through joint ventures with local companies. Europe represents a very large potential market for Scottish-based financial services companies, particularly in the provision of long-term savings and pensions and the management and administration of investment funds. Europe is now Scotland's second biggest market after the United Kingdom. I am told that several of the non-British companies that have established financial services operations in Scotland in the past few years are already doing. or intend to do, a large amount of work in Scotland for customers in Europe.
Unfortunately, there are obstacles to Scottish companies—I am sure that the same is true for companies in the rest of the UK—selling into European markets. Those obstacles include language differences, culture, and transport links, some of which are easier to

137WH
tackle than others. However, some of those factors are under the control of politicians and Governments, such as the currency difference between the UK and most of the rest of the European Union. It is my view that the Scottish financial services industry would suffer, as would the rest of industry, if we were to be excluded in the long term from the single European currency. However, I do not wish to speak at length about that issue today, as I am sure that the Minister would refer me to future opportunities to discuss it.
However, if the Scottish financial industry is to be able to take maximum advantage of the opportunities to grow its market elsewhere in Europe, the Government must address the question of regulatory differences, which can act as a powerful protectionist factor and constrain the ability of the dynamic financial services industry in places such as Scotland to compete on a level playing field in some other European countries.
I know that it is the view of many of the major players in the Scottish financial services industry that Scottish companies have much more to gain than to lose through the completion of the single market in financial services across the EU. I support their call that the European Commission should be encouraged to take forward its action plan intended to bring into being a single regulatory framework for financial services by 2005. For that reason, I welcome the announcement made by the Chancellor in his Budget speech that he will urge Europe's competition authorities proactively to investigate barriers to competition, starting with financial services. I am sure that that commitment will be welcomed in the Scottish financial services sector, and I should be interested to hear from the Minister how that plan will be implemented. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consult the important Scottish industry as he makes progress with the plan, and will consider a visit to Edinburgh to meet some of the leaders of the sector.
That is the opportunity that we must grasp. As I said earlier, there are also threats to the Scottish financial industry. In the last few minutes available to me today. I shall say something about the most immediate peril: the threat that would arise if the Scottish financial industry, as a result of constitutional shenanigans, found itself cut off from what is still overwhelmingly its most important market—that in England, which is 10 times the size of the Scottish market. Because we are part of the same United Kingdom, that market is open to the Scottish financial services industry on equal terms to those on which it is open to any London-based company. The people to whom I speak in the financial services industry tell me that they want to maintain that level playing field, and maintain a single regulatory system for the financial services industry throughout the UK.
That single market and single regulatory system would be under threat were Scotland to leave the UK. We now have long-term stability, brought about by the Government's policies and a monetary policy managed independently by the UK central bank. No one knows what arrangements would be put in their place in a separate Scotland. Would there be a Scottish pound? Would an independent Scotland keep the pound sterling? If it did, that would hardly make all the uncertainty and disruption of independence worth while. Would an independent Scotland seek to join the euro? Would it be allowed to do so, given that the
138WH
spending policies of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Socialist party would breach, by vast amounts, the limits set on members of the eurozone? Would there be an independent Scottish central bank, or would Scotland's monetary policy be set by the finance committee of a Scottish Parliament?
That presents us with the unattractive prospect of an uneasy coalition of the SNP and the Scottish Socialist party sitting down to decide how much the Scottish Executive could borrow and the rate at which they would attempt to set a Scotland-based lending rate. If Scotland ended up with a separate currency from England, that would increase the costs of Scottish financial products for customers in England, who would be much more likely to move their custom elsewhere.
I know that Scottish nationalists and others who support separation do not like to talk about such issues, but they are fair questions to ask, and particularly appropriate to a debate on the financial services industry. There is no doubt that the prospect of years of constitutional uncertainty and wrangling would introduce a major threat to the Scottish financial services industry. It is uncertainty that frightens off existing and potential customers. After all, how many customers of Scottish financial services companies would risk keeping their money in Scotland if they thought that Scotland's economic and taxation policies were going to be decided by the SNP and Tommy Sheridan's SSP? Billions of pounds would flow out of the Scottish economy, hitting jobs in Edinburgh hard.
It would not just be English customers who would be frightened off. Many Scottish customers of financial services companies would be likely, I am sure, to seek safer homes for their savings. That is just what happened in Quebec in the run-up to the independence referendum held by the Quebec nationalist Government a few years ago. The SNP has the same policy of keeping Scotland in suspense, should it be elected to power, by holding an independence referendum at some secret date in the next four years.
That uncertainty, if it came about, would hang a sword of Damocles over the jobs of 100,000 people in Scotland, many thousands of whom work in my constituency. Not only would people who work in the financial services industry would be at risk of losing their jobs; the financial services industry and its employees buy goods and services from many other industries. Printers, legal and accountancy firms, and the IT industry have important contracts with the financial services industry, which would be at risk if the existing UK economy were to broken up and Scotland were to separate itself from its most important market.
I hope that the Minister can say something about the threat to the financial services industry in Scotland that would arise if those who would seek to divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK were ever to get their way.
4.15 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing the debate, and on setting out in such clear and persuasive terms the importance of the financial services sector not only to his Edinburgh constituents but to the economic health of Scotland.

139WH
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this subject. Of the top 20 companies located in Scotland, 10 are in the financial services sector. They account for 70 per cent. of the profits generated by those top 20 companies. With a flourishing retail and corporate banking sector, a substantial life assurance and pension presence, and a fast-growing investment management expertise, the Scottish financial services sector exhibits strength and breadth in depth.
At the heart of that dynamic sector, despite activity in other parts of Scotland, is the vital centre of Edinburgh, which provides the pool of expert knowledge and skills that maintains Scotland in the premier league of locations for providers of financial services in Europe. The Government are working in close partnership with the Scottish. Executive to encourage a strong financial services sector in Scotland.
In June 2001, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Financial Enterprise launched "Investing in our Future". That action plan was developed in partnership with the financial industry to focus on the challenges and opportunities for the future growth of Scotland's financial services sector. I understand that good progress is being made in implementing the plan.
Although my hon. Friend is right to sing the praises of the financial services industry in Scotland, he is also right to warn of the damage to the financial services industry in Scotland, and hence to the wider Scottish economy, that would follow should anything be done to jeopardise the strong UK policy Framework that has fostered the strength and growth in that sector.
In response, I should like to focus on some of the key elements of that policy framework, which has been so important both at the European level, to which my hon. Friend drew our attention, and domestically. Those are essential for the continued success of the Scottish and the wider UK financial services sector.
The importance of financial services to the economy as a whole has been well stated. It is also worth stressing the importance of the Scottish economy to the overall strength of the UK's financial services sector. A full 11 per cent. of jobs in UK financial services are located in Scotland. The Scottish financial services industry has been, and remains, central to the continued success and strength of the UK financial services sector as whole. The clear links and dependencies between the industries north and south of the border are highlighted by the fact that England remains Scotland's most popular market for investment.
The financial services industry in the UK will continue to flourish and to make a key contribution to the wealth of the nation only if the macro-economic environment is correct. The Government's economic policy framework, which has delivered a platform of low inflation and sound public finances, means that the environment necessary for Facilitating further development of UK financial services now exists. That was confirmed in the recent International Monetary Fund financial system stability assessment on the UK, which stated:

"The UK's large and sophisticated financial sector features fundamentally sound and highly developed financial institutions, markets and infrastructure, supported by a financial stability
140WH
policy framework that has been significantly strengthened in a number of ways in recent years, and that in many respects is at the forefront internationally".

What could be more damaging to essential economic stability, successful Celtic companies and the future of Scottish jobs than wrenching the country through a costly and complex divorce?
Perhaps because of the elections tomorrow, the Scottish National party fudges the issue of independence with a policy of fiscal separation, which is motivated by the desire not to build Scottish competitiveness but to break the British political connection. In doing so, it puts at risk Scottish jobs and successful Scottish firms, especially in the financial services field, which my hon. Friend is rightly so concerned about. Recognition that the UK's policy framework is leading the field internationally must not make us complacent about seeing reform elsewhere. As my hon. Friend has urged, the UK has been a determined advocate of further European liberalisation in the financial services field.
We brought the issue to the top of the political agenda during the last UK presidency when, at the Cardiff summit, Heads of Government agreed to the financial services action plan, which aims to deliver an integrated EU financial services market. We have kept up that pressure and, at the Lisbon summit in 2000, secured agreement that the financial services action plan should be completed by 2005.
Creating an integrated EU financial services market will enable firms to cut the cost of raising capital and it will benefit consumers by giving them a wider choice of competitively priced and better-developed products. The FSAP is an important tool, but putting legislation on the statute book is not enough. It is important that legislation be properly implemented by member states—not incompletely, with such incomplete implementation being used to hinder access to domestic financial services markets. Protectionism hinders competition and hurts consumers.
It is important that, where financial services providers encounter such barriers, they report them to the Commission, which must take effective action to tackle them. I encourage my hon. Friend to encourage the financial services providers in his constituency, and more widely within Scotland, to bring such concerns to the attention of the Commission.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the need to promote greater competition in European financial markets. He mentioned the Chancellor's statement to that effect in the Budget, which said:

"Because flexibility at a UK level should be matched by flexibility in Europe, we are proposing that Europe's competition authorities proactively investigate barriers to competition, starting with financial services".—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 277.]

Competition is central to the creation of an effective and integrated EU financial services market. In such markets, as in others, it is important that established providers do not use their market position to hinder new entrants. In that respect, we welcome the Commission's ongoing inquiry into cross-border clearing and settlement. Where UK financial services providers feel that their market access is restricted by unfair competition, it is important that they bring it to the

141WH
attention of the Commission, and it is important that the Commission takes effective action. Again, I encourage my hon. Friend to pass the message on to the financial services providers in Scotland.
The Treasury has, for some time, been working closely with the financial services industry, including representatives from Scotland, to identify the barriers to the creation of a more integrated EU system. Treasury Ministers and senior Treasury officials hold regular round tables with industry and consumer representatives to discuss the issues. The Treasury particularly welcomes the recent report on single market barriers, which was produced by a number of financial services industry trade associations and firms, including from Scotland. It identified more than 80 individual barriers to the creation of a genuine single market for financial services in Europe, and it forms a substantial agenda for action. I also know that the report was well received in Brussels.
142WH
Effective and efficient financial markets are important for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend, but they also stand behind the development of all other areas of the economy. To make real progress towards the creation of a comprehensive single market, we need to recognise the important contribution that the EU's financial centres—not just London, Frankfurt and Paris, but also Edinburgh—make to the EU economy.
A national approach to issues of strategic importance to the UK as a whole is needed, and financial services are a leading example of such an area. The strength of the UK's financial sector, in which Scotland and Edinburgh are so significant, means that it is vital that the UK has a strong voice in discussions in Europe on financial services regulation and competition and on progress towards a single market. Neither the UK nor Scotland would benefit from speaking with separate voices; indeed, both would be damaged if we ever did so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what steps the Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109450]

  Dr. John Reid
  My Department has a commitment that there should be no unfair treatment of staff on the basis of age. The Privy Council Office has implemented the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game", in particular that permanent staff can stay on up to the age of 65 subject to operational requirements.

  My Department currently employs two staff who are beyond retirement age. Both are fee paid and employed for their skills and to meet the needs of the Department. My Department has also taken advantage of the New Deal for Over 50s.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff in his Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109252]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Privy Council Office is fully committed to Government targets on reducing sickness absence. The sickness levels of all staff are monitored monthly to ensure that the Department is on target to meet, and maintain, this commitment.

  Due to the size of my Department, I am unable to provide the hon. Member with the information requested as it may lead to the identification of individuals.

TREASURY

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109487]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held in the format required and any further examination would be of a disproportional cost.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to adjust the index by which pension and other benefit levels are uprated. [110236]
  372W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government made a commitment to raise the full basic state pension by the higher of the September RPI or 2.5 per cent., based on the RPIX, for the remainder of this Parliament.

  Budget Data Sources
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a file of Budget data sources. [110230]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The "Budget 2003 technical annex: data sources, and economy charts and tables", is in both Libraries of Parliament, and is available on the Treasury website.

  Charitable Organisations
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which charitable organisations his Department has funded in each year since 1997. [105684]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government supports causes of a charitable nature (such as international development, help for elderly people and animal welfare) through the relevant Departments, whose programmes include work through the voluntary sector. The Government has also demonstrated its support through the Budget 2000 'Getting Britain Giving' package of tax reliefs to encourage charitable giving, and further reforms in Budget 2002. Tax reliefs are now worth £2 billion a year to charities.

  The Treasury itself supports charities through practical means. Both Treasury and the Inland Revenue have provided secondments to the Giving Campaign which is also funded jointly by the Inland Revenue and the charitable sector; we have opened the Payroll Giving scheme to our own staff; and we are considering donating life-expired computer equipment for use in developing countries.

  Furthermore, on Wednesday 30 April HM Treasury will—in conjunction with the Compact Working Group on relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector-publish a consultation on the use of the £125 million fttfi/rebuilders fund announced as part of the 2002 Spending Review. The fund is intended to enable the voluntary and community sector to help deliver public services, and as such the proposals were developed jointly with the voluntary and community sector.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for his calculations of increased corporation tax receipts, as summarised in paragraph C46 of Budget 2003. [110228]

  Mr. Boateng
  The increase in corporation tax receipts shown in Budget 2003 is largely due to the expectation that financial company profits will return to their medium-term trends as recovery in the world economy becomes more firmly established and gathers pace.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic
  373W
  modelling conducted by his Department to show the impact of early retirement on the economy for the next 10 years. [110405]

  Ruth Kelly
  No macroeconomic modelling has been done of the impact of early retirement on the economy over the next 10 years. Increased early retirement in the near future would tend to reduce the supply of labour available to employers and so, all other things equal, potentially reduce the growth of employment and output in the near future. However the recent pensions Green Paper explained that the average UK age of withdrawal from the labour force of retirement is relatively high compared to most other EU member states, and set out a range of measures to enable those wishing to work for longer to do so.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures, and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108856]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the harmonisation of the compilation of gross national product at market prices, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110275]

  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 Bercow, dated 30 April 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the GNP Committee of the EU. (110275)
  The GNP Committee is made up of representatives from each member state and chaired by the Commission. The UK is usually represented by the Director of National Accounts Coordination Division of the Office for National Statistics (Senior Civil Service Band 1) accompanied by the Head of Europe and Dissemination Branch (SEO equivalent grade).
  Since January 2002 the Committee has met twice; on 24 June 2002 and 5 November 2002.
  The main work of the Committee is in ensuring the harmonisation of GNP for Member States and consistency with the conventions of the European System of Accounts (ESA). During 2002, the Committee received reports on the progress of the Commission's work on their detailed examination of the methods for estimating GNP in each member state. It also considered the best approach to complying with the ESA in the areas of consumption of fixed capital, insurance, reinvested income on foreign direct investment, artistic originals and illegal
  374W
  activities. The committee also gave its opinion on the completion of the questionnaires on annual GNP estimates completed by member states.
  The Committee took a range of procedural decisions in 2002 which did not require communication to the House of Commons.

  Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has had with(a) the Governor and (b) officers of the Bank of England on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. [110232]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor regularly meets with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a wide range of issues. The Treasury representative to the MPC and other Treasury officials also regularly discuss economic issues with counterparts in the Bank of England.

  Income Tax Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the Income Tax (Sub-contractors in the Construction Industry and Employments) (Amendment) Regulations. [109971]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No representations have been received regarding these Regulations.

  Inflation Indicator
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the progress and (b) the scope of the Treasury's review of the detailed implications of changing the indicator of inflation from RPIX to HICP; and whether the Treasury's review will consider the implications of replacing RPIX with an adapted version of HICP. [110235]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are several measures of inflation published monthly by the ONS, including RPIX and HICP. The Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement that the Treasury would continue to examine the detailed implications of adopting the HICP. The Government intends that measures of inflation based on the RPI will continue to be published.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) current and (b) future use of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices as a measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. [110233]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that the Treasury would continue to examine the detailed implications of changing the inflation target to an HICP basis. He reaffirmed the symmetrical inflation target based on the current RPIX measure for this financial year of 2.5 per cent.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contingency plans he has to adjust the inflation target for the Monetary Policy Committee in the event of a move from RPIX to HICP. [110234]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor reaffirmed the inflation target for this financial year at 2.5 per cent. on the current RPIX measure.
  375W
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of(a) the European Union, (b) EU member states and (c) the European Central Bank regarding a possible change from using RPIX as the indicator of inflation to using HICP. [110237]

  Ruth Kelly
  While Treasury officials have regular discussions with counterparts in the European Commission, other member states and the European Central Bank on a wide range of issues, the Bank of England Act (1998) gives the Treasury responsibility for specifying what price stability is taken to consist of in relation to the monetary policy objectives of the Bank of England.

  Oil Price
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the price of a barrel of Brent Crude oil at the time of each budget since 1997. [110240]

  John Healey
  For the purposes of the public finance projections, the following audited assumption has been adopted since the 1999 pre-Budget report:"The oil price will be based on the average of independent forecasts for one year ahead. If the average of independent forecasts shows a fall in the oil price, that price in real terms will be used for the remainder of the five year forecast period. If the average of independent forecasts for one year ahead shows a rise, then the previous convention that oil prices would be close to their current levels in nominal dollar terms over the coming year, and remain flat in real terms thereafter, will be adopted."

  Between Budget 1997 and the 1999 pre-Budget report it was assumed that oil prices remained close to recent levels in the short term and thereafter remained flat in real terms. These assumptions are set out in more detail in Audit of Assumptions for the pre-Budget report November 1997 (HC 361, Session 1997–98), Audit of the Future Oil Price Convention for the November 1999 pre-Budget report (HC 873, Session 1998–99) and Audit of Assumptions for the 2002 pre-Budget report (HC 109, Session 2002–03).

  The starting per barrel oil price assumed in each budget since 1997 is listed in the following table.

  $

  Budget 2003

  26.6

  Budget 2002

  21.5

  Budget 2001

  24.4

  Budget 2000

  22.4

  Budget 1999

  11.0

  Budget 1998

  14.5

  Budget 1997

  18.8

  Retirement Benefit Schemes Order
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about The Retirement Benefit Schemes (Indexation of Earnings Cap) Order. [110511]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received no representations about The Retirement Benefit Schemes (Indexation of Earnings Cap) Order 2003 (SI 2003 No. 843).

  Savings
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there have been over the last decade in the amount of money placed in private savings by those aged between 20 and 30 years of age. [110407]

  Ruth Kelly
  In order to provide a complete picture of changes in saving patterns over time, one would need disaggregated household data covering all asset classes—from liquid financial savings to longer-term investments such as pensions and housing—as well as debt. Such a comprehensive survey of assets and debt does not currently exist in the UK. However, as the recent pensions Green Paper made clear, it is essential to develop good-quality data about people's saving over time; their overall assets; and the savings and assets of partners. Action is being taken to address these issues. The Office for National Statistics recently reviewed pension contribution statistics. This review highlighted a number of new data sources that are currently planned or under way, including a survey of assets and wealth.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109258]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of staff who had a period of sick absence lasting more than 30 working days is as follows:

  Number of staff

  2002

  24

  2001

  23

  2000

  14

  1999

  10

  1998

  5

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he is taking to address hardship caused by delays in the payment of child tax credit to claimants previously in receipt of working family tax credit; [109369]

  (2) what action he is taking to minimise delays between the final payment of working families tax credit and the first payment of child tax credit to claimants; [109337]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why some taxpayers who were previously receiving working families tax credit are experiencing delay in receiving payments of child tax credit; how many cases of delay are occurring; and when it is expected that the new system of child tax credits will be working properly and handling claims expeditiously. [109374]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Inland Revenue asked people to make claims for the Child Tax Credit by the end of January to ensure that as many claims as possible could be processed in time for first payment in April or May. Whether first payment of
  377W
  the Child Tax Credit is due in April or May depends on whether people are due to receive it weekly or four weekly. Two thirds of all claimants are due to receive their direct payments of tax credits every four weeks. If they sent their claim to the Inland Revenue by the end of January, and there are no outstanding enquiries, they can expect to receive their first tax credit payments no later than 2 May.

  The vast majority of those opting to be paid weekly and who claimed by the end of January should have received their money already. Claimants are being contacted in the small minority of cases where further information is needed to process their claims.

  Claims received after the end of January are being processed as quickly as possible. Claims from former recipients of Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit are being prioritised.

  In the tiny minority of cases where a payment is due and has not been received, as an alternative to phoning the helpline, claimants may want to visit their local Inland Revenue office. Local offices can check the status of a claim and, where appropriate, can arrange an emergency payment of tax credits.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families are receiving(a) child tax credit and (b) amounts equivalent to child tax credit through income support or jobseeker's allowance who will be automatically transferred on to child tax credit before October 2004; [110474]

  (2) what the take-up rate was for working families' tax credit in each year since 1999; what target he has set for the take-up rate for working tax credit; and what estimate he has made of the likely take-up rate of working tax credit. [110475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 162W.

  Tax/Social Security Changes (Budget)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for his calculations of increases in net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP in the years to 2007 as summarised in Table C10 of Budget 2003. [110227]

  Mr. Boateng
  Changes in net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP, as shown in Table Cio of Budget 2003, are due to a number of factors, including:The return to trend of financial company profits from their current levels;
  Normal fiscal drag; and
  Measures announced in Budget 2002.

  Taxation
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the relationship between(a) direct and (b) indirect taxation and an individual's incentive to work; and if he will publish the results. [108461]
  378W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government is committed to developing a wider base of knowledge to help evaluate the effect of measures and inform the effect of possible future policies on work incentives. Policy advice, analyses and research is being used to develop our understanding of the interaction of reform to the tax and benefit system arid work incentives.

  No research has been commissioned that looks at the effect of indirect taxes on work incentives.

  Two-year Test
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003, ref. 109148, on the two-year test, if women on the reduced rate of national insurance contributions who were out of work for more than two years had to make a claim to be treated as full-rate contributors. [110170]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No claim is required. The election to pay reduced rate contributions is automatically terminated.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the annual report of her Department will be published. [107885]

  Alun Michael
  The spring 2003 Departmental Reports are to be published between 28 April and 16 May 2003. We will publish our Departmental Report within this window.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) other conferences sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-Departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104270]

  Alun Michael
  The following is a list of the events commissioned centrally by Defra and which were part of the Department's publicity programme. The events, incurred by Defra's centralised publicity budget were commissioned at a cost of £1.2 million.

  The information for each agency and non-departmental body for which Defra is responsible could only be collated at a disproportionate cost.

  Shows 2002–2003

  Agrivision At the National

  Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh

  Towards Tomorrow's Countryside

  Sprays and Sprayers 2002

  Lincolnshire Show

  Tatton Park Flower Show 2002

  Fruit Focus 2002

  Pig and Poultry Fair

  Devon County

  Grassland (and MUCK)

  Beef 2002

  379W

  Royal Bath and West

  Royal Cornwall

  South of England

  Cereals

  Three Counties

  East of England

  BBC Gardener's World Live

  Royal Norfolk

  Royal Show

  Hampton Court Flower Show

  Great Yorkshire

  CLA Game Fair

  New Forest and Hampshire

  Sheep

  Royal Lancashire

  Northumberland Show

  National Scrapie Plan Stand

  The Royal Welsh Show

  Agrivision Roadshow 2002–2003

  The Royal Smithfield Show

  Discover Dogs

  Town and and Country Show 2002

  The Supreme Cat Show 2002

  The National Cat Club Show

  Scientific Advisers Presentations

  British Equine Event November 2002

  Sustainability In Public Service

  E-nabling Defra Conference

  The Daily Mail Ideal Home Show

  Events 2002–2003

  Eight Regional Events On Sustainable Food and Farming

  European Dairy Event

  Career Fair and Welcome Events

  Sustainable Development Strategy Launch

  British Equine Event

  Abbotts Hall Farm (Agri-Environment)

  Skill City

  International Food and Drink Exhibition 2003

  Brockhole Visitors Centre

  Wildlife Crimes Unit

  Marine Stewardship Event

  Launch of New Atlas of British and Irish Flora

  Enabling Defra Event

  Communications Directorate Diversity Workshops

  Community Renewable Initiative Workshop

  DEFRA Hunting Hearing

  OECD Launch

  ESC Study Group Meeting (EU)

  Public Appointments Seminars

  Sustainable Development

  Conferences and Seminars 2002–2003

  Bio Energy Conference

  Flood and Coastal Management Conference

  Countryside Stewardship Campaign, 10th Anniversary

  Conference

  Noise Forum Conference

  Creating the Future 2002

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff 380W
  in her Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. [108338]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has contractual arrangements in place which are generally more generous than those provided for by the Act. Such arrangements apply to all staff irrespective of grade or working pattern and form part of Defra's wider commitment to have arrangements in place which allow staff to create an appropriate work/life balance. The Department does not keep a separate record of the number of staff who have had time off work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply on behalf of CEFAS to your question concerning how many staff have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  The information is not collated centrally within the Agency and could only be collected at disproportionate cost from individual personnel records.
  The Secretary of State has also asked me to reply to your question regarding how many staff have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  There have been no requests for parental leave under the provisions of this Directive.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. John Bercow, dated 11 April 2003:
  I have been asked to respond directly to your two recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Parental Leave Directive.
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staff in her Department have taken time off work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  Reply: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has policies in place which allow for special leave for staff to attend to domestic incidents. Responsibility for authorising and monitoring such leave is devolved to individual management units and can only be collated at disproportionate cost.
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staff in her Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  Reply: The RPA is fully committed to helping employees achieve a better balance between home and work through family friendly policies Accordingly, the RPA has policies in place to allow for Parental leave but the information required is not held centrally and cannot be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Steven Edwards to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many staff in her Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  For the period 1/4/02 to 31/3/03 approval was given in 43 cases for staff to attend to domestic incidents. There were a further 13 cases of paternity leave which is also provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. (Figures for earlier years are not held.) The VLA has contractual arrangements in place which are generally more generous than those provided for by the Act. Such arrangements apply to all staff irrespective of Pay Band or working pattern and form part of the VLA's wider commitment to have arrangements in place which allow staff to create an appropriate work/life balance.
  381W
  Letter from Mike Roberts to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003.
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, with respect to the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many staff have taken time off work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  CSL offers both paid and unpaid special leave to staff faced with urgent domestic crises. No claims for unpaid leave have been received since the introduction of this entitlement.
  A number of applications have been made for paid special leave in these circumstances and the overwhelming majority have been granted. However, the details of these claims for paid leave are not held centrally and the information could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cubic metres of low-grade nuclear waste from decommissioned power stations have recently been identified by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [109621]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's (RWMAC's) Advice to Ministers on the Management of Low Activity Solid Radioactive Wastes Within the United Kingdom was published in March 2003. What the Committee pointed out is that as nuclear site decommissioning plans, including those on which nuclear power stations have operated, progress, and radioactive contamination is identified and characterised, substantial volumes of building rubble and soil with levels of contamination at the bottom of the low level waste activity range—of the order of that of the very low level wastes produced by small users—are being identified. Initial estimates of volumes are set out in Annex 4 of the RWMAC report and amount in total to more than 3,300,000 cubic metres, of which more than 3,000,000 cubic metres is attributed to the Sellafield site. The Committee believe that a substantial proportion of this very low activity waste from nuclear site decommissioning and clean-up activities has not been included in past inventories, although they acknowledge that, at this stage, estimates are very approximate.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition of nuclear waste was used as the criterion for inclusion in the Government inventory of nuclear waste. [109622]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest 2001 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory describes four categories of waste—high level wastes, intermediate level wastes, low level wastes and very low level wastes. The definitions of these categories correspond with those given in the 1995 White Paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions" (Cm2919). The inventory records total UK stocks and projected future arisings under the first three of these categories, based on latest estimates provided by those responsible for the wastes. The fourth, the very low level wastes category, which is intended to apply in particular to wastes produced by "small users" of radioactivity—such as hospitals, universities, research laboratories 382W
  and non-nuclear industries—contains very little radioactivity, and no central records of arisings are compiled or contained in the inventory.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what method is to be used to dispose of the low-level nuclear waste recently identified by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [109623]

  Mr. Meacher
  This is a matter for those responsible for the waste to propose, and to secure, regulatory agreement. All disposals of radioactive waste must be the subject of application to, and authorisation by, the environment agencies—the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland—operating under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and in accord with current UK Government and Devolved Administration radioactive waste management policy.

  Organic Farmers
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic farmers have been registered in North Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [109010]

  Mr. Meacher
  According to our latest records there are currently 71 organic farms registered in North Yorkshire. Information for earlier years, broken down by county, is not available.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive. [108358]

  Alun Michael
  Departmental figures for parental leave show that four people took leave in 2002 followed by a further two in 2003 to date. Defra came into being in 2001 for which no figures are available.

  The Department is committed to having arrangements in place which allow staff to create an appropriate work/life balance and the unpaid parental leave entitlements sit alongside a range of alternative working patterns and contractual entitlements many of which offer some form of paid absence. They are offered to staff irrespective of grade or working pattern.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply on behalf of CEFAS to your question concerning how many staff have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  The Information is not collated centrally within the Agency and could only be collected at disproportionate cost from individual personnel records.
  The Secretary of State has also asked me to reply to your question regarding how many staff have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  There have been no requests for parental leave under the provisions of this Directive.
  383W
  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. John Bercow, dated 11 April 2003:
  I have been asked to respond directly to your two recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Parental Leave Directive.
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staff in her Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999.
  Reply: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has policies in place which allow for special leave for staff to attend to domestic incidents. Responsibility for authorising and monitoring such leave is devolved to individual management units and can only be collated at disproportionate cost.
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staff in her Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  Reply: The RPA is fully committed to helping employees achieve a better balance between home and work through family friendly policies Accordingly, the RPA, has policies in place to allow for Parental leave but the information required is not held centrally and cannot be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Steven Edwards to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many staff in her Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  There has been only limited take-up of this facility in the VLA. Figures for parental leave show that one person took leave in the period 1/4/02 to 31/3/03. Figures for earlier years are not held.
  The VLA is committed to having arrangements in place which allow staff to create an appropriate work/life balance and the unpaid parental leave entitlements sit alongside a range of alternative working patterns and contractual entitlements many of which offer some form of paid absence. They are offered to staff irrespective of Pay Band or working pattern.

  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, with respect to the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many staff have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.
  CSL allows staff to apply for unpaid Parental Leave. These claims are recorded centrally and records show that since the Parental Leave rights were announced in 1999, a total of 12 requests for unpaid Parental Leave have been received and all have been granted. The periods of leave range from 3 to 20 days.
  CSL is committed to the continued use of family-friendly working practices and views Parental Leave as merely one aspect of an organisational approach to flexible working that includes flexible working hours, part-time working, job-share, special leave, annual leave, tackling 'long hours' cultures, etc.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109260]

  Alun Michael
  There is no central definition of what constitutes long-term sickness absence, but this Department, as part of its ongoing commitment to the effective management of sickness absence routinely records and monitors all sickness absence and automatically refers cases to its Occupational Health Adviser when an absence has reached 90 days.
  384W
  Defra was created in 2001 and the following figures reflect such referrals and cover staff in the core Department and Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Pesticides Safety Directorate Agencies, for absences beginning in the years listed:

  Year

  2001

  127

  2002

  107

  Responsibility for attendance matters within the Central Science Laboratory Agency, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Rural Payments Agency and the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency has been delegated to Chief Executives and they have been asked to reply direct on this issue.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 April 2003:
  I have been asked to respond directly to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning sick leave absence.
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staff in her Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years.
  Information on the number of staff who were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years is not available for the Rural Payments Agency. RPA is a relatively new organisation formed in October 2001. RPA is still developing a computerised Personnel System to provide sickness absence data of the kind requested. Specific information on numbers of staff on long term sick leave could only be obtained at disproportionate administrative cost and time, but the Agency refers cases to the Medical Adviser as appropriate.
  RPA is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meeting targets for reducing sickness absence as set out in the Agency's Business Plan for 2003–04.
  RPA has developed a sickness absence management policy and procedures, that includes a revised strategy for managing long term sickness absence, for implementation from May 2003.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to Mr. J. Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply to your question regarding how many staff were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  For CEFAS staff, a review point of 60 days (i.e. 2 months or more) is used to define long term absence. During the past five years, the numbers of staff on long term absence were as follows:

  Year

  1998

  2

  1999

  3

  2000

  10

  2001

  9

  2002

  7

  CEFAS has successfully introduced a scheme for 'Return to Workplace' interviews and is fully committed to managing attendance effectively. We are on target for achieving the reduced levels of sickness absence we have set out for the Agency.
  385W
  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, with respect to the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many staff were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years.
  CSL has no formal definition of what constitutes "long-term" sick leave but does automatically refer to Occupational Health all staff who are absent for more than 90 days. Our records show that the numbers of staff on long-term sick leave (i.e. exceeding the 90-day absence referral point) were as follows:

  Year

  1998

  2

  1999

  4

  2000

  3

  2001

  7

  2002

  7

  CSL has been successful in managing sickness absence through innovations such as recruiting a dedicated Occupational Health professional, running regular health awareness campaigns and carrying out all-staff health surveys. The organisation remains committed to the continued effective management of sickness absence.

  Letter from Steven Edwards to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many staff in her Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years.
  There is no central definition of what constitutes long-term sick absence. VLA has adopted a pro-active stance to monitoring attendance with earlier and speedier referrals to the Occupational Physician.
  The following figures cover staff within VLA for absences beginning in the years listed:

  Year

  1998

  10

  1999

  20

  2000

  20

  2001

  15

  2002

  20

  VLA is committed to the effective management of sickness absence and to meeting sickness absence reduction targets.

  TB Tests
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts her Department makes to trace the source of a bovine TB reactor in cases where the cattle was(a) not born on the holding and (b) brought onto the holding since the last bovine TB tests. [108767]

  Mr. Morley
  Where there is evidence, following epidemiological investigation, that bovine tuberculosis has been introduced by the movement of infected cattle onto the premises, such movements are traced back and, where appropriate, the originating herd is tested for TB.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Budget (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the statement in paragraph 3.22 of the Budget report encompasses Scotland. [110154]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]Paragraph 3.22 of the Budget report does not encompass Scotland; the paragraph describes the position in relation to England. Pharmacy control of entry regulations are devolved and Devolved Administrations made their own announcements regarding their responses to the OFT's recommendation on pharmacy entry controls on 26 March 2003.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had on marking Gibraltar's 300th anniversary with a commemorative stamp issue for 2004; and what representations were received on the issue. [109552]

  Mr. Timms
  None. The stamp programme is a matter for Royal Mail, which as I understand, had a number of representations on this issue.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108492]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W.

  Supermarkets
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect on the UK economy of the growth of multinational supermarket chains. [105899]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As part of the process of globalisation and greater integration of the world economy, there has been a trend by some of the largest food retailers, in the UK and other countries, to expand their business beyond the borders of their country of origin. We welcome overseas investment that improves competition in markets, which is to the benefit of consumers and the UK economy as a whole.

  Trading Standards Professionals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many scholarships were awarded to Trading Standards professionals under the Department of Trade and Industry's Modernisation Fund in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and how many scholarships have been budgeted for (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [110419]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As part of the Modernisation Fund for consumer protection, extra funding has been provided to support the training and development of Trading Standards professionals by funding scholarships, which help local authorities increase the
  387W
  number of staff they train. In 2001–02, 167 candidates were supported by scholarships, and in 2002–03, 216 candidates received funding.

  £1 million has been made available in 2003–04 to continue to support the training of Trading Standards personnel.

WALES

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary to discuss NHS dentistry. [109794]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues including health care in Wales.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet colleagues in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the roll out of digital terrestrial television in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [109796]

  Peter Hain
  None—but I maintain close contact with my ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales.

  Our Digital Television Action Plan aims to ensure the widest range of consumer choice, quality, affordability and accessibility.

  Departmental Report (Objective 3)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he attended in 2002–03 to secure objective 3 of the Wales Office as set out in the departmental report for 2002. [109797]

  Peter Hain
  I meet my colleagues regularly, both collectively and bilaterally. Our discussions cover a wide range of matters including many where I am able to represent the Welsh interest.

  CAP Reform
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the impact of CAP reform in Wales. [109798]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary and I meet the Assembly Agriculture Secretary and DEFRA Ministers to discuss a variety of issues, including Common Agriculture Policy Reform.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding agriculture in Wales. [109799]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary and I meet the Assembly Agriculture Secretary and DEFRA Ministers to discuss a variety of issues, including the future of the agriculture industry in Wales.

  Barnett Formula
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on reform of the Barnett formula. [109788]

  Peter Hain
  None. The Government has no plans to replace the Barnett formula.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  British Citizenship Applications
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful appeals there were against a refusal of British citizenship in each of the last five years. [109607]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no statutory right of appeal against a refusal to grant British citizenship.

  Very few individuals seek to challenge the refusal to grant British citizenship by way of application for judicial review—an estimated average of one case per year over the past 10 years. No figures are kept on the number of unsuccessful applicants who make informal representations—either in person or via an MP or other intermediary—against refusal. It is estimated that less than a quarter of those refused citizenship subsequently make representations against the refusal. The outcome of such challenges varies from case to case.

  99,825 decisions on applications for British citizenship were made in 2001, of which 9,530 (10 per cent.) were refusals. 88,995 decisions on applications for British citizenship were made in 2000, of which 6,785 (8 per cent.) were refusals.

  Information on decisions of applications for British citizenship are published regularly in "Persons Granted British Citizenship United Kingdom, 2001", a copy of which is available from the Library. It is planned that information relating to decisions made in 2002 will be published at the end of August 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 March 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Paul Kirby. [109366]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 29 April 2003.

  Immigration Removal Centres
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff there were at each immigration removal centre in the UK in each of the last five years, broken down by grade. [109508]

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

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the ban on paid employment for immigration detainees held in removal centres. [109510]
  389W
  Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to provide paid employment to persons detained in immigration removal centres. Immigration detainees are able to participate in a wide range of constructive activities during their detention based on education, sport, recreation, physical education and religion.

  Insurance
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has undertaken on the impact of the withdrawal of public indemnity insurance liability by insurance companies on the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement. [109718]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]I am aware of the problems being experienced by those in the voluntary and community sector, as a result of the volatility in the insurance market since 11 September 2001. It is deeply worrying that small groups of volunteers who are making a real contribution to their communities are being faced with such difficulty.

  The Active Community Unit in the Home Office has set up the "Insurance Cover Working Group (ICWG)" to look into the situation and advise on practical solutions. The ICWG has engaged external specialists to undertake a study into the current position regarding the provision of insurance for the voluntary and community sector, including public indemnity liability, and to make practical recommendations that will bring relief to the problems.

  The consultants report is to be delivered to the ICWG on 16 June 2003 when the Government will be better placed to consider actions and initiatives to address the issue of rising premiums and the withdrawal of insurance cover, that is in some cases affecting the voluntary and community sector's ability to deliver services.

  Once the recommendations of the report have been considered, decisions will be taken to implement agreed practical solutions in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, the insurance industry, local authorities and Government Departments.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) the Department for Education and Skills, (b) the Local Government Association and (c) representatives of local education authorities on the implementation of provisions contained in sections 36 and 37 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [109518]

  Beverley Hughes
  Discussions with the Department for Education and Skills continue on a regular basis. Representatives from local education authorities for the areas where accommodation centres have been proposed and from the Local Government Association attended meetings with officials from the Home Office and Department for Education and Skills on 20 August, 20 September, 14 October and 15 January.

  Passports
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been mislaid by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate over the past three years; and how many of these have subsequently been found. [108291]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. In 2002, the Integrated Casework Directorate issued 390 lost passport letters for documents that could not immediately be found. However, a range of measures, including secure holding areas and early return of sponsors' passports, is being taken to improve performance.

  Study Visas
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been issued for children of parents who have been given permission to study in the UK in each of the past 10 years. [109727]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Information on whether visas have been issued for adults or children is not collated centrally. It is therefore not possible to identify separately the number of visas issued for children.

DEFENCE

  Biological Agents (Testing)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence analytical laboratories in the UK have the(a) equipment and (b) expertise to provide a testing service for (i) anthrax, (ii) botulism, (iii) staphylococcus enterotoxin B, (iv) ricin, (v) plague and (vi) smallpox. [109290]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down is the only defence laboratory within the United Kingdom that possesses this capability.

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial and other assistance is available to the families of servicemen who have died in combat or training; if he plans to increase support; what assistance is available to non-married partners of servicemen; and if he will make a statement. [110024]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 3 April 2003,Official Report, columns 781–82W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and to my written ministerial statement of 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 54WS.

  The proposals for the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme would result in substantial improvements in benefits for family and dependents. This will be achieved

  391W
  at no additional cost through re-balancing the benefits elsewhere in the scheme. The new arrangements would not, however, be introduced before 2005–06.

  With regard to wider assistance, on the repatriation of a deceased Service person to the United Kingdom, facilities are made available to host close relatives and associates who wish to attend the arrival of the aircraft and any accompanying ceremony. A package of allowances is available for the family which includes travel and subsistence costs.

  Familes of Service personnel who occupy Service family accommodation are able to stay in the accommodation for as long as they feel they need to assess their longer-term housing requirements.

  Where children are at boarding school, boarding school allowance (BSA) continues for the school term immediately following the date on which the death occurs, provided that there is a liability to pay boarding school fees for that term. When the child has embarked on and is within two years of taking GCSE or GCE A Level examination or an academic equivalent, BSA will continue up to and including the term in which the examination is taken.

  In every case an officer is appointed to provide wider emotional and administrative support and assistance to the family in the following days and months. There is no time limit on this support, which continues for as long as necessary.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's(a) responsibilities and (b) assets with regard to civil contingency planning; what funds are committed; what action he is taking within his Department to improve such planning; and what action he is taking in collaboration with other Departments. [102627]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement given on 3 March 2003,Official Report, columns 72–77WS by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Blunkett) on civil contingencies as part of the debates on the approval of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Order 2003 and the Intelligence and Security Committee Report on the Bali bombing. The statement refers to the Lead Government Department Paper which the Cabinet Office placed in the Library of the House on 23 July 2002, and which sets out the role of the lead Government Departments in planning for and managing crises.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 March 2003, Official Report, coilumns 957–58 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander).

  The Ministry of Defence does not take the lead in any area, but regularly provides support to lead agencies and Departments in responding to civil contingencies through the provision of Military Assistance to the Civil Authorities (MACA). In doing so, the Department draws on its military, scientific, and technical expertise. The Department plays a similar supporting role in preparation and planning the response to these
  392W
  contingencies. With the exception of a small number of specialist operations, however, no assets are dedicated to the task. Support draws on those resources available at the time. Unless life is in danger, the civil authorities are charged for this support.

  The MOD has recently conducted a detailed review of its response to the threat from international terrorism. The Home Office and other Departments and agencies were involved in this work, and the MOD actively sought the views of the public. The results were published in the White Paper, "The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter" (CM5566 volume 1), presented to Parliament on 18 July 2002. These include improvements to the regional command and control mechanism across the United Kingdom, the formation of 14 Civil Contingencies Reaction Forces (drawing on the Armed Forces Reserves) and an enhanced role for 2 Signal Brigade. All of these improvements are designed to enhance the MOD's capacity to provide support in the event of a serious terrorist incident in the UK. These enhancements are currently being implemented, at an estimated cost to the defence budget of £60 million over four years.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of cluster bombs in urban areas of Iraq; how many cluster bombs have been used by British forces in the campaign; and what efforts are being made to minimise the risk to civilians of the use of cluster bombs. [108808]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]On the use of cluster bombs in urban areas in Iraq, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 April Official Report, column 571W to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Mr. Price), which also explains the provisions in international law to minimise the risk to civilians. On efforts to minimise the risk to the civilian population, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 11 April Official Report, column 423W to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton).

  As of 9 April, United Kingdom Forces have dropped some 66 RBL755 cluster bombs in Iraq.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the exit rates were for(a) GPs, (b) consultants and (c) trainees in each of the defence medical services in each year since 1981 (i) at the end of a short service commission, (ii) at immediate pension point, (iii) through premature voluntary retirement, (iv) through redundancy and (v) in total; and if he will make a statement. [109324]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is only possible to provide detailed information on the exit rates of medical officers for the last 10 years. Medical officers may leave the Defence Medical Services for various reasons, but the only breakdown of the exit rates available centrally is for those leaving due to Premature Voluntary Retirement (PVR) or on the completion of their commission. This information is provided as follows:
  393W

  Percentage

  PVR

  Completed commission

  Other

  Total

  Short service commission1

  1993–94

  1.7

  8

  1.2

  10.9

  1994–95

  3.6

  11.5

  2.1

  17.2

  1995–96

  2.8

  14.4

  1

  18.2

  1996–97

  1.2

  5.9

  1.1

  8.2

  1997–98

  1

  7.9

  1.1

  10

  1998–99

  0.8

  5.2

  0.4

  6.4

  1999–2000

  1.2

  5.3

  0.2

  6.7

  2000–01

  2.3

  3.2

  0.4

  5.9

  2001–02

  1

  2.5

  1.3

  4.8

  Medium/long commission2

  1993–94

  2.3

  3.2

  0.1

  5.6

  1994–95

  5.4

  2.7

  1.5

  9.6

  1995–96

  4.8

  4.5

  4.2

  13.5

  1996–97

  5

  2.9

  8.4

  16.3

  1997–98

  4.3

  2.2

  0.4

  6.9

  1998–99

  2.9

  1

  0.5

  4.4

  1999–2000

  4.8

  2.9

  1.1

  8.8

  2000–01

  5

  1.2

  0.2

  6.4

  2001–02

  3.3

  1.7

  0.4

  5.4

  1 Figures represent percentage outflow against the total strength of medical officers on Short Service Commissions at the start of each financial year.

  2 Figures represent percentage outflow against the total strength of medical officers on Medium/Long Commissions at the start of each financial year.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British officials will serve in the US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. [109330]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  British officials are being seconded from a range of Government Departments to help the US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. So far 19 have been identified with appropriate expertise and we are looking to increase this number. At this early stage there is no set ceiling.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to ensure the International Committee of the Red Cross gain access to all prisoners of war in Iraq. [109707]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has been working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since the start of military operations in Iraq. The ICRC has had full and free access to all United Kingdom-held prisoners of war, and at its request, visited UK prisoner of war camps on numerous occasions. The ICRC also has access to all UK prisoners held in US theatre internment facilities.

  Liew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment is being made of the quantity of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being emitted as a result of UK military activities in the invasion of Iraq. [107605]

  Mr. Ingram
  None, though an assessment carried out by the Meteorological Office of 1992 Gulf War concluded that the carbon dioxide emitted during that operation had a negligible effect on the global climate.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many individuals have been seconded to her Department from(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, in each case listing (i) from which organisation and (ii) dates of secondments, in each year since 2000. [108079]

  Clare Short
  The following statistics relate to secondments started in each financial year.

  Seconded to Dfid

  Private Sector

  NGO

  Other

  Organisations

  Total

  2000–01

  —

  —

  1

  1 Other Government Dept

  1

  2001–02

  —

  1

  6

  1 International Alert

  7

  2 Other Government Dept

  1 Metropolitan Police

  1 Crown Agents

  2 European Commission

  2002–03

  —

  —

  15

  14 Other Government Dept

  15

  1 European Commission

  2003–04

  1

  —

  1

  1 Rio Tinto

  2

  1 Other Government Dept

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many civil servants have been seconded from her Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108080]

  Clare Short
  The following statistics relate to secondments started in each financial year. The statistics for years 1998–99 to 2000–01 are based on annual returns to Cabinet Office, and detailed information on location is not available in these returns.

  Dates

  Private Sector

  NGO

  Other

  Location

  Grades

  Total

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Band A: 2

  2

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Band A: 9

  10

  2 Band B: 1

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SCS: 2

  10

  Band A: 8

  2000–01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SCS: 4

  16

  Band A: 10

  Band B: 2

  2001–02

  —

  1

  29

  England: 5

  SCS: 3

  30

  Scotland: 1

  Band A: 25

  Wales: 1

  Band B: 2

  N. Ireland: 0

  EC: 10

  Other: 13

  2002–03

  1

  —

  39

  England: 14

  SCS: 7

  40

  Scotland: 1

  Band A: 24

  Wales: 1

  Band B: 7

  N. Ireland: 0

  3 Band C: 2

  EC: 8

  Other: 16

  2003–04

  —

  —

  3

  England: 2

  Band A: 2

  3

  Scotland: 0

  Band B: 1

  Wales: 0

  N. Ireland: 0

  Other: 1

  1 Band A = SEO-G6

  2 Band B = EO/HEO

  3Band C = AA/AO

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109496]

  Mr. Rammell
  The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for accountancy services in 2002–03 was £1,772,000.

  British Embassy (Dubai)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for Raul Fernandes' dismissal from his employment at the British Embassy in Dubai on 5 March 2002. [108632]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Raul Fernandes has filed his case at the UK employment tribunal. We should not comment until the conclusion of the legal proceedings.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the introduction of a uniform format for visas, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110278]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Visa Working Party does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European Union member states. Since 17 April 2003, delegates from the 10 EU accession states have also been invited to attend most EU committees, including the Visa Working Party, as active observers. The Visa Working Party holds a regular meeting once a month, and occasional extraordinary meetings are held as necessary. It discusses a range of EU-related visa matters relating mainly to the development of a common visa policy under the Schengen acquis, including the introduction of a uniform format visa. This forms part of the process of negotiation which culminates in legislative proposals being considered by the Council of Ministers. Domestically, such legislative proposals are submitted to Parliament under established scrutiny procedures and are considered and reported on by the House of Lords European Union Committee, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the draft European Constitution's proposals on the area of freedom, justice and security for Britain's Schengen opt-out; and if he will make a statement. [109553]
  396W
  Mr. Straw
  The Future of Europe Convention's proposals on justice and home affairs do not have any implications for the Protocols attached to the current Treaties. Article E of Part Three (General and Final Provisions) of the draft Constitution provides that the protocols shall remain an integral part of the new Treaty. The question of reconsidering these protocols has not been raised in the Convention. The Government position on the protocols relating to our frontier controls has not changed. We will maintain controls at the UK's frontiers.

  Interfaith Initiatives
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been allocated annually to interfaith initiatives in each year since the inception of this policy; and what projects have been supported under this initiative. [110353]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both in London and overseas, actively supports and promotes religious freedom and interfaith relations in a number of ways. This includes the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, the FCO's Sponsored Visits Scheme, and the Human Rights Project Fund, which spent over £57,000 last financial year on projects to promote religious freedom. The Religious Freedom Panel, held twice a year, also helps foster interfaith links and promotes mutual understanding.

  The FCO does not have a separate, specific budget for interfaith initiatives.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the terms of reference are for the US Office of Humanitarian Assistance and Reconstruction in Iraq; and if he will list the people appointed, their nationalities and their gender. [109304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) was established by the US Department of Defence to provide transitional civilian authority for post-conflict Iraq, under coalition control. ORHA continues to recruit specialist staff as the scope of the reconstruction of Iraq becomes clearer.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the organisations invited by the USA to attend a conference to discuss the Iraqi Interim Authority; and which are women's organisations. [109320]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer of 28 April 2003]The US organisers issued invitations to individual Iraqis, not organisations, to participate in a meeting in Nasiriyah on 15 April. Six Iraqi women were invited; four are reported to have attended and three spoke publicly. The Coalition is committed to promoting the inclusion of women in all phases and at all levels of the reconstruction of Iraq in line with UN Resolution 1325 (October 2000).
  397W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the people flown back to Iraq by the US to work with Ahmad Chalabi are women. [109739]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 April 2003]We have no information on how many of Chalabi's group are women.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budget in financial year 2002–03 his Department has for outside public relations and marketing. [93868]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office budgeted £327,529 (including VAT) for outside public relations and marketing in FY 2002–03.

TRANSPORT

  Aeroplane Noise
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage aviation companies to replace older and noisier aeroplanes with aeroplanes with the latest technology low-noise engines through(a) financial incentives, (b) legislative measures and (c) other incentives. [110458]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Government plans for the future of aviation in the UK are currently the subject of comprehensive review in preparation for a White Paper it is hoped to publish later this year. These plans will be decided in the light, inter alia, of the outcome of current discussions with stakeholder groups on the appropriate use of economic instruments for encouraging the aviation industry to limit aircraft noise and its other environmental impacts. Regulations to transpose EU Directive 2002/30/EC, which sets out rules and procedures for introducing noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, are in preparation. It is hoped to lay them before the summer recess.

  Air Transport (Consultation)
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a summary of responses to the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK, broken down by(a) region and (b) subject matter, with reference to partial planning blight; [110420]

  (2) how many representations he has received concerning domestic property prices as a result of the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK. [110421]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not yet analysed all the responses but we will produce a summary after the consultation closes.

  Firstgroup Rail Franchise
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the reasons for excluding the Firstgroup rail franchise from bidding for the new Greater Anglia rail franchise. [109891]
  398W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Meole Brace Post Office
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to increase the level of public transport provision for those people affected by the closure of Meole Brace post office in Shrewsbury to travel to other post offices. [109664]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Shropshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority to determine. However, I understand that there are no plans to increase the service currently operated by Arriva Midlands on behalf of Shropshire County Council.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many PFI contracts his Department or its agencies(a) have with and (b) are being tendered for by (i) Amey plc and (ii) consortia involving Amey plc; what the total value is of those contracts; what the average length is of the contracts or proposed contracts; and what assessment his Department has made of the financial position of Amey plc and the implications for his Department. [108329]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Amey plc retains no sole interest awards in PFI contracts for the Department for Transport or its agencies.

  Amey plc retains an interest in three PFI contracts awarded to consortia by the Department for Transport and its agencies. These contracts have a total capital value of £5,705 million; two of them are for 30 years and the other for 99 years.

  Neither the Department for Transport nor any of its agencies have any PFI contracts out to tender with Amey plc.

  The PFI procurement process includes an assessment of the financial robustness of bids. In most cases the bids involve more than one party and this adds to their financial strength.

  The Government does not maintain an exhaustive list of which companies have financial interests in particular projects. Such interests vary both in degree and over time and do not necessarily impact on the quality, continuity or the ongoing viability of the project concerned.

  It would be inappropriate for Government to comment on the financial position of particular companies, which is a matter for the shareholders concerned.

PRIME MINISTER

  Air Transport
  Andy King
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations have been received by 10 Downing Street on the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK. [110363]
  399W
  The Prime Minister
  Since October 2002, I have received over 6,000 letters, campaign cards and petitions about air transport, the majority or which relate to the current consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the UK. The consultation responses have been forwarded to the Department for Transport for inclusion in the formal consultation process.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to celebrate Gibraltar's 300th anniversary(a) in the UK and (b) in conjunction with the Government of Gibraltar. [109554]

  The Prime Minister
  We shall consider carefully the question of UK Government participation in commemorative events. So far, there have been some informal exchanges between officials about the 300th anniversary.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many United Kingdom and United States inspectors have been deployed in Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction; what expertise those from the United Kingdom have to conduct the inspections; from what budget they are being paid; and if he will(a) place in the Library and (b) post on the 10 Downing Street website daily updates on the work of the US-UK Iraqi inspection teams. [110113]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in the House on 14 April, a specialised team is beginning work and we are in discussion with allies and the UN as to what the future role of the UN in such a process may be.

  The initial United Kingdom contribution centres around a number of dedicated survey teams, totalling around 120 personnel, including nuclear, chemical and biological specialists, explosive ordnance disposal personnel; experts in forensic science and evidence-gathering, debriefing and interviewing specialists; and, supporting functions. This initial activity is being funded as part of the overall additional military costs of the operation as a whole. The funding of the United States contribution is a matter for the Government of the United States.

  We will aim to release information concerning evidence of Iraqi WMD programmes when and where appropriate, as we did before the conflict began.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list appointees on the New Millennium Experience Company. [109406]

  Mr. McNulty
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in voluntary, solvent liquidation. Richard Heis and Stephen Treharne of KPMG are the 400W
  appointed liquidators of the company. The directors of NMEC, who surrendered their powers to the liquidators when the company was placed in liquidation, are:

  David James

  David Quarmby

  Len Duvall

  Sir Brian Jenkins

  Bob Hewes

  Planning Policy Guidance 22
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has and over what time scale to revise Planning Policy Guidance 22. [109833]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently preparing the revised planning guidance on renewable energy (PPG22) following informal consultation with a number of interested parties and publication of the recent Energy White Paper. We intend to consult on a draft later this year.

  Public Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to prevent the closure of services provided in association with local government by the voluntary sector due to the unwillingness of insurers to provide public indemnity insurance; and if he will make a statement. [109720]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of the problems being experienced by those in the voluntary and community sector, as a result of the volatility in the insurance market since 11 September 2001. It is deeply worrying that small groups of volunteers who are making a real contribution to their communities are being faced with such difficulty.

  The Active Community Unit in the Home Office has set up the "Insurance Cover Working Group (ICWG)" to look into the situation and advise on practical solutions. The ICWG has engaged external specialists to undertake a study into the current position regarding the provision of insurance for the voluntary and community sector, including public indemnity liability, and to make practical recommendations that will bring relief to the problems.

  The consultants report is to be delivered to the ICWG on 16 June 2003 when the Government will be better placed to consider actions and initiatives to address the issue of rising premiums and the withdrawal of insurance cover, that is in some cases affecting the voluntary and community sector's ability to deliver services.

  Once the recommendations of the report have been considered, decisions will be taken to implement agreed practical solutions in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, the insurance industry, local authorities and Government Departments.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Contact Centres
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many child contact centres are in operation; and what plans he has to extend the use of child contact centres as neutral venues for children to meet their non-resident parent. [110371]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A survey of child contact services in England and Wales last year identified 522 private law child contact centres. 83 per cent. of these are affiliated to either the National Association of Child Contact Centres or NCH. We are working closely with key providers and users to extend service provision and develop service standards. The Government is providing £2.5 million over the next three years from the Children's Fund for child contact services. This includes developing new supervised child contact services in parts of the country with no such service. We are also working with Sure Start and local authorities, through the Local Government Association, to utilise public law contact facilities.

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures his Department has taken to combat the breach of contact orders between separated parents. [110370]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Deliberate refusal to obey any court order (breach) is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court might also consider a change in the child's place of residence. Imposing a fine or imprisonment must be balanced against their likely impact on the child at the centre of the dispute. The Government considered the recommendations contained in the report of the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, "Making Contact Work" and published its initial response on 6 August 2002. An expert group has been considering alternative enforcement mechanisms. A full response to the report will be published in the summer.

  Criminal Defence Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received about the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order. [109970]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108505]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Connexions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representatives from local business are members of management boards for each of the Connexions partnerships. [110197]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The current position is:15 of the 47 partnerships had two or more employer representatives
  26 of the 47 partnerships had one employer representative
  6 of the 47 partnerships had no employer representative

  Mr. Hendry
  TO ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from(a) teachers and (b) organisations representing teachers on the work of Connexions. [109721]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]While the Secretary of State receives a number of representations from teachers and organisations representing teachers these are not collated in any particular form.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he monitors the success of Connexions in meeting service targets and objectives; and if he will make a statement of Connexions' success in meeting those targets and objectives to date. [109722]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Connexions Service National Unit (CSNU) has put in place a performance management framework to monitor the success of Connexions in meeting targets and objectives. Key elements of this are:

  (a) management information, collected by Connexions Partnerships and other agencies dealing with young people;

  (b) quarterly reviews of performance between Connexions Partnerships and Government Offices;

  (c) local and national evaluation to provide both quantitative and qualitative information on the impact of the Service at national and local level;

  (d) Inspections of Connexions Partnerships by Ofsted. Full inspections began in September 2002, and it is expected that Partnerships will be inspected on a four yearly cycle.

  Priority to date has been to establish Connexions across the whole of England

  This has now been achieved, with nearly 9000 Personal Advisers and front line delivery staff in post at the end of February 2003. Increasing numbers of young people are being helped by Connexions, and partner agencies are reported to be working more closely together. Ofsted findings are being analysed nationally to inform future planning at national and local level. Evidence from the first wave of evaluation at national level should be available from summer 2003.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Connexions service is marketed; what the total expenditure on marketing the
  403W
  Connexions service has been to date; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the marketing of Connexions. [109723]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Connexions Service is marketed primarily at local level through the 47 Connexions Partnerships. This is for two reasons—the local nature of the delivery of the Service and the incremental roll out of the Service, which meant that it was not available nationally until April 2003. (The first partnerships went live in April 2001 and the last in April 2003.)

  The Connexions Service National Unit has supported that local activity with two bursts of nationally funded marketing in areas where Connexions was live, using media that could be bought regionally. The marketing focused on raising awareness of the Service's existence among young people. The bursts were:
  February to March 2002 (advertising on radio and outdoor poster sites)
  November 2002—January 2003 (advertising at local cinemas, on local radio stations and on outdoor poster sites)

  Other marketing activity has been focused on communicating with stakeholders, practitioners and the wider public via specialist, sector arid regional press.

  At a national level, the total expenditure on the above nationally funded marketing to date has been £3,446,898.21.

  Individual partnerships receive grant funding from the Department to provide services for young people. Part of that grant is spent on marketing. The National Unit does not require partnerships to provide information on spend to the level of detail that would allow a meaningful figure to be provided for the total expenditure for all partnerships to date.

  The effectiveness of Connexions' national marketing is evaluated in two ways tracking research conducted pre and post advertising activity and quarterly media evaluation to assess the effectiveness of our media activity and penetration across our target audiences.

  Tracking research was conducted for both bursts of advertising to assess its effectiveness by monitoring levels of awareness of Connexions among 13–19 year olds. Following the February to March advertising campaign, awareness of Connexions among young people rose from 27 per cent. to 36 per cent. Pre-advertising research also showed that 32 per cent. of young people didn't know what Connexions was—this figure fell to 19 per cent. following the advertising.

  Research conducted before the second burst of advertising in November 2002 recorded awareness levels of 35 per cent.. Following the advertising this figure increased to 51%. Young people also reported that their use of the Service during the period of the advertising rose from 9 per cent. to 16 per cent.

  Separate ongoing evaluation of media coverage for the Connexions Service is also conducted. The latest report (to the end of January 2003) shows that reach among adults in England is at 39 per cent. with 100 per cent. of articles appearing in the last quarter as strongly or slightly favourable.
  404W
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many clients of the Connexions service are aged(a) 13, (b) 14, (c) 15, (d) 16, (e) 17, (f) 18, (g) 19 and (h) over 19; and what percentage of the total number of clients this represents in each case. [109724]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]Information in the following table has been taken from data supplied by the 46 operational Connexions Partnerships at the end of February 2003.

  Information on young people who are of compulsory education age is collected by school year group, rather than the age of the individual, this data is not currently available by each year group but only as a total of all those in years 8 to 11. Information on those who have completed compulsory education is collected by the age of the individual.

  England

  Proportion (percentage)

  Young people of compulsory education age

  Years 8–1 1

  2,083,123

  49.2

  Young people who have completed compulsory education

  16

  334,740

  7.9

  17

  596,123

  14.1

  18

  586,794

  13.9

  19

  572,824

  13.5

  20+

  57,232

  1.4

  Total

  4,230,836

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what involvement young people have had in the design and delivery of services provided by Connexions; and through what mechanisms this involvement has occurred. [109730]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  One of the key principles of Connexions is that Partnerships will listen to, and take account of, the views of young people in the design, delivery and evaluation of the service. In the first operational year over 18,000 young people were involved in shaping the service through local activity and at a national level. All Partnerships employ at least one person with responsibility for youth participation and they support youth forums and other activities.

  Connexions has involved young people in a variety of ways. Young people from all backgrounds and ages have been involved. They have undertaken specific roles, ranging from consultation to peer research.

  Young people have played a key role in the selection of Partnership staff up to and including Chief Executives.

  Young people have also helped to develop guidance for Connexions Partnerships on such subjects as involving young people in the governance of Connexions Partnerships, developing Connexions Youth Charters and involving 'hard to reach' young people.

  Their feedback has directly influenced policies and procedures. Over 200 one stop shops have been established as a result of young people's views.
  405W
  The achievements of Connexions in actively involving young people were recognised in December 2002 by being awarded runner up status in the Young People's category of the Institute of Public Policy Research/Guardian Public Involvement Awards.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what strategy the Connexions service has to enhance the effectiveness of voluntary organisations working with young people. [109732]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In October 2002, the Connexions Service National Unit published its "Strategy for Engaging the Voluntary and Community Sector in Connexions". That strategy includes many actions which will enhance the effectiveness of voluntary organisations working with young people. Examples include the creation of "VCS Liaison Officer" type posts to encourage the participation of smaller organisations and to provide information and support; VCS representation on Connexions Boards and other local fora; establishment of a Good Practice Database; development of a set of clear goals and performance indicators for Connexions Partnerships working with the VCS and newsletter and electronic mailing.

  Connexions Partnerships will decide how to implement the strategy locally, including any grant awards for capacity building.

  In addition the Department for Education and Skills' National Voluntary Youth Organisation (NVYO) Grant Scheme is the only source of direct Government support for the voluntary youth sector. The current cycle of grants to the headquarters of 90 NVYOs supports a total of 98 projects.

  DfES has also made allocations from the "Transforming Youth Work Development Fund" to the NVYOs. £2 million was allocated in 2002–03 and £1 million in 2003–04.

  A further aspect of the DfES' strategy is the Neighbourhood Support Fund (NSF). The NSF supports local (and often small) voluntary and community organisations to provide innovative projects, and aims to create and develop local capacity to address the issues associated with the hardest to reach young people. There are currently around 650 NSF projects within 40 of the most deprived local authority areas with a total budget of £60 million (until September 2003). In the next phase we plan to embed NSF fully into Connexions.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to encourage the participation of local businesses in the delivery of Connexions. [110193]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our guidance to connexions partnerships requires them to involve employers on their Boards. In some cases the independent Chair has a business background. We also encourage the inclusion of local employers on local management committees.

  A number of Connexions Partnerships manage Education Business Partnership activities, which helps facilitate work experience for year 10 and 11 pupils, enabling employers to directly influence the future
  406W
  career decisions of young people. The Connexions Service also works closely with local employers to help them recruit young people to local vacancies.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what safeguards are in place to ensure confidentiality for young people who share information with Connexions service personal advisers. [110195]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions Partnerships are required to operate within the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. Bespoke personal adviser training and guidance to partnerships on the professional conduct of personal advisers and the assessment of young people's needs cover confidentiality. They make it clear that personal advisers should work with the informed consent of the young person.

  Nannies (Registration Scheme)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce a comprehensive registration scheme for nannies. [108428]

  Maria Eagle
  There are no current plans to introduce compulsory registration for nannies. However, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sure Start has received a number of proposals and representations on this issue which she is looking at.

  Accessibility Strategies
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Local Education Authorities in England and Wales have not published accessibility strategies and accessibility plans under subsections (2) and (9) of section 28D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [R] [109419]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Planning Duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 require local education authorities (LEAs) in England to develop accessibility strategies and schools to develop accessibility plans. LEAs must make their strategies available for inspection to interested parties at reasonable times. Schools must publish information about their accessibility plans in their governors' report to parents. LEAs strategies and school plans were required to be in place by 1 April 2003.

  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect the information requested centrally. However, as part of their regular inspections of LEAs and schools, Ofsted will monitor the implementation of these Planning Duties. The National Assembly is responsible for the implementation of the Planning Duties in Wales.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109486]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The total of costs classified as accountancy services in the accounts of the Department in 2002–03 is £69,584.00.

  City Academies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills where the accounts of city academies will be recorded. [110056]

  Mr. Miliband
  As Academies will be registered charities as well as companies, their accounts will be recorded with both Companies House and The Charity Commission. Academies will also keep a record of their accounts at their registered offices.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have become City Academies in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110140]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three Academies opened in 2002 in Bexley, Haringey and Middlesbrough. Nine further Academies will open in September 2003. These are in Brent, Bristol, Ealing, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Walsall and two in Southwark.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, broken down by school year and LEA, was in each year since 1997. [110214]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bodies received some or all of their funding from his Department; how much funding was received by each body; and who the chief executive of each body was in each year since 1997. [110134]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information on funding of executive non- departmental public bodies is published annually in the Departmental Report. Information on the chief executives is contained in the individual annual reports published by each of the executive non-departmental public bodies. Information on other bodies is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff are employed by his Department. [106279]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891–92W.

  Domestic Repair Work
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and skills how many(a) plumbers, (b)joiners and (c) electricians were employed doing domestic repair work in Greater London in 1993; and how many there are now. [108383]
  408W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Figures for those employed solely doing domestic repair work in the occupations listed are not collected.

  However, the Labour Force Survey estimates the numbers employed for all types of work undertaken in London in 1993 were 11,000 plumbers, 19,000 joiners and 19,000 electricians; and in 2003 there are 16,000 plumbers, 18,000 joiners and 23,000 electricians.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget was for each school in(a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Kingston-upon-Hull and (d) Durham in each year since 1977. [110253]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget is for each school in(a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Kingston upon Hull and (d) Durham for the financial year 2003–04; and what the projected total budget is for each school in Norfolk, showing projected deficits for the subsequent financial years in (i) 2004–05, (ii) 2005–06 and (iii) 2006–07. [110254]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not yet available. The Department is in the process of collecting the data relating to the 2003–04 financial year. I shall write to the hon. Member when the information for 2003–04 is to hand.

  The information requested for financial years 2004–05 to 2006–07 is not due to be collected by the Department until March of those years.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the amount spent per pupil is in the financial year 2003–04 for each school in(a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Kingston upon Hull and (d) Durham. [110256]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not yet available. The Department is in the process of collecting the data relating to the 2003–04 financial year. I shall write to the hon. Member when the information for 2003–04 is to hand.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget was for each local education authority in England for each year since 1997, showing(a) the amount and (b) the percentage of the total LEA budget held at the centre in each case, and (i) the amount and (ii) the percentage of the total LEA budget handed on to schools. [110257]

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

  Examination Results
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what (1) the breakdown of grades achieved by students who sat the GCSE(a) English, (b) mathematics and (c) science examination prior to reaching school year 11 was in each year since 1997; [110091]
  409W
  (2) how many children sat the GCSE examination in a foreign language prior to reaching school year 11 in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) school year and (b) local education authority; [110092]

  (3) how many children sat the GCSE (a) English, (b) mathematics and (c) science examination prior to reaching school year 11 in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) school year and (ii) local education authority; [110093]

  (4) what the breakdown of grades achieved by students who sat a GCSE examination in a foreign language prior to reaching school year 11 was in each year since 1997. [110099]

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

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many excellence in cities projects in England(a) opened, (b) closed and (c) were operating in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110143]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The EiC programme was launched in 1999—there were no programmes running in either 1997 or 1998. No EiC partnership has closed.

  The programme was introduced in three phases.

  Phase 1 began in September 1999 with 25 LEAs. These were Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Bradford, Leeds, Rotherham, Sheffield, Birmingham, Camden, Corp of London, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster.

  Phase 2 in September 2000 extended the programme to 23 additional authorities: Halton, Rochdale, Sefton, St. Helens, Wirral, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Redcar and Cleveland, South Tyneside, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland, Kingston upon Hull, Solihull, Stoke-on-Trent, Leicester, Nottingham, Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Ealing, Bristol

  Phase 3 in September 2001 again extended the programme to include 10 additional authorities: Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Oldham, Barnsley, Doncaster, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Luton, Enfield, Hounslow.

  September 2001 also saw the inclusion of Excellence Clusters in the programme to tackle smaller pockets of deprivation. Further Clusters have since been established in the following authorities:

  2001

  Lancashire(2), Tameside, Cumbria, Kirklees(2), Walsall, Coventry, Croydon, Portsmouth, Kent,

  2002

  Thurrock, Barnet, Durham, Cheshire, Derby, Buckinghamshire, Hillingdon, Lancashire, Milton Keynes, Norwich, Peterborough, Stockport, Wigan. In addition Preston Education Action Zone transformed to a cluster.
  410W
  2003

  From September further clusters will be created in the following authorities: Kent(3), Lincolnshire(3), Northamptonshire, Essex, Derbyshire, Havering, Bexley, Swindon and North Lincolnshire. The current Phase 2 Solihull Partnership will convert to a cluster.

  In addition:

  Five Education Action Zones will transform into clusters:
  Croydon (New Addington), Grimsby, Herefordshire, Trafford and Weston.

  2004

  In January a further six Zones will transform into clusters:
  East Basildon, East Brighton, Halifax, Plymouth, Thetford and Wigan.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been provided to each Excellence in Cities project in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110145]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The main Excellence in Cities programme now covers 58 local education authority areas. Smaller pockets of deprivation are covered by Excellence Clusters in 37 authorities.

  The tables which have been placed in the Library show the funding allocated to LEAs since the programme began in 1999 for:
  EiC phase 1, 2 and 3 partnerships, and
  LEAs with an Excellence Cluster.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools that select some or all of their pupils on the basis of faith have (i) opened and (ii) closed in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110137]

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

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools selected some or all of their pupils on the basis of faith in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110138]

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

  General Teaching Council
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to review the categories of teachers exempted from the General Teaching Council fee payable as a result of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [109998]

  Mr. Miliband
  Current regulations authorise the General Teaching Council to charge a registration fee and to decide whether there should be exceptions where
  411W
  a fee is not charged. The Council has not exercised its powers to exempt any registered teacher from paying the fee. We have no plans to review these regulations.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding was received by the General Teaching Council from his Department in each year since its creation. [110130]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding provided by this Department to the General Teaching Council (GTC) is as follows:

  £

  GTC

  2000–01

  14,000,000

  2001–02

  9,024,000

  2002–03

  3,735,000

  2003–04

  1,443,000

  1 Grant in aid payments to the GTC began in September 2000. Funding in 2000–01 therefore covered the period September 2000 to March 2001 inclusive.

  Learning Support Units
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning support units in England(a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110144]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Department does not collate information on the number of LSUs which have opened and closed each year in each LEA.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding each learning support unit has attracted in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110146]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The Department does not collect data on the funding of all Learning Support Units (LSUs). Decisions on funding arrangements for LSUs are taken at local level.

  A number of DfES initiatives have made funding available to support LSUs. LSUs are also funded through the overall resources available to Local Education Authorities and schools.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children failed to gain a place at the school of their choice in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110125]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not keep statistics on how many children fail to gain a place at the school of their choice at primary, secondary and special schools. Individual local education authorities may have information. Collecting reliable data is difficult, because many parents apply for places at more than one school and it may not be clear which is their first preference. Research published by the Department in June 2001 suggested that, nationally, 96 per cent. of parents receive an offer of a place at at least one of the schools for which they express a preference.

  Prince's Trust
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on schemes operated by the Prince's Trust in each of the past 10 years. [109728]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information held for financial years before 1999–2000 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. I list in the table the amounts paid to the Prince's Trust in the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03 inclusive. All payments were for activities carried out in respect of the European Social Fund. This function has now transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions.

  £

  Financial Year

  Amount

  1999–2000

  1,236,397.74

  2000–01

  351,239.00

  2001–02

  200,611.00

  2002–03

  444,952.00

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many PFI contracts his Department or its agencies(a) have with and (b) are being tendered for by (i) Amey plc and (ii) consortia involving Amey plc; what the total value is of those contracts; what the average length is of the contracts or proposed contracts; and what assessment his Department has made of the financial position of Amey plc and the implications for his Department. [108330]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills does not itself have any PFI contracts. It has a PPP arrangement for the provision of the Connexions Card but this does not involve Amey pic. The Department does not have any agencies but is responsible for a number of Non Departmental Public Bodies which are separate contracting authorities. Schools PFI contracts in England are between Local Authorities and the private sector and 56 such contracts have been signed to date. Typically they are contracts for between 25 and 30 years. Two of these contracts involve consortia including Amey pic. However, since contract signature Amey has sold its equity stake in these projects although it continues to deliver support services. The position of equity holders in projects can vary over time but this does not necessarily impact on the quality, continuity or the ongoing financial viability of the project itself. The procurement process includes an assessment of the financial viability of bids to ensure they are robust over the long term and the contracts include arrangements for dealing with possible early termination.

  Pupil Absences
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the potential liability incurred by schools or local education authorities in the event of pupils coming to harm while absent from school without authorisation, but in a situation where their absence has been encouraged or condoned by a teacher. [109415]
  413W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  None. Such assessments would be for schools and local education authorities to consider.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the number of half days missed through (i) unauthorised and (ii) authorised absence in (A) primary and (B) secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [110121]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department commissions the national pupil absence survey each year which collects the total number of authorised and unauthorised half days missed from all primary, secondary and special schools in England. Departmental evaluation of this data informs our strategies to improve attendance and tackle truancy in all schools.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children have played truant in each month of this academic year, broken down by local authority; [110094]

  (2) what figures he has collated on the number of children who have played truant in each academic year since 1997, broken down by (a) gender, (b) LEA and (c) ethnic group. [110109]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The data for the national pupil absence survey is collected at school level once a year after the spring term. No data for 2002/03 will be available until the autumn and this will only show the overall number of children that actually missed at least one half day due to unauthorised absence for the academic year from September 2002 to May 2003. The data cannot be broken down by month.

  The national pupil absence survey only collects one set of figures for each school and information on the characteristics of individual pupils cannot be deduced from this to provide breakdowns by (a) gender or (c) ethnic group. The information collected at school level for the academic year September to May, is as follows:
  Total number of sessions
  Number of sessions missed due to authorised absence
  Number of pupils absent for at least one session due to authorised absence
  Number of sessions missed due to unauthorised absence
  Number of pupils absent for at least one session due to unauthorised absence
  Each session represents one half day.

  This information is then collated at LEA level for both maintained primary and maintained secondary schools and at national (England) level for all schools. The LEA breakdown showing the number of pupils absent for at least one session due to unauthorised absence is shown in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many officials in his Department are employed on projects and initiatives to reduce truancy. [110097]
  414W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills has ten officials working exclusively on the coordination and implementation of projects and initiatives to reduce truancy and improve attendance. The work of many other officials within the Department — and in other Departments—also contributes to these aims.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on projects and initiatives to reduce truancy in schools since 1997. [110101]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A wide range of national and local projects and initiatives to reduce truancy has been introduced since 1997, involving schools, local authorities and many other stakeholders. It is therefore not possible to calculate overall expenditure on measures of this sort.

  Pupil Setting
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 818W, on pupil setting, by what measures his Department has encouraged the use of setting to meet the learning needs of more able pupils. [109021]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Guidance to Excellence in Cities partnerships lists several approaches they might wish to consider, including:"adopting setting in 'linear' subjects like maths, science and modern foreign languages, to make the teaching of the able pupil cohort more manageable. While setting gives able pupils the opportunity to work at a faster pace, it must be operated flexibly, so that pupils can move into and out of sets when appropriate".

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 818W, on pupil setting, what the frequency was of the use of setting in (a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) modern foreign languages and (d) English at (i) Key Stage Two, (ii) Key Stage Three and (iii) Key Stage Four level in schools inspected by Ofsted in 2001–02. [109610]

  Mr. Miliband
  Data collected by Ofsted during school inspections shows:

  Percentage of set lessons as observed by Ofsted during 2001–02

  Percentage

  Key stage 2

  Key stage 3

  Key stage 4

  Mathematics

  31

  82

  92

  Science

  3

  59

  86

  Modern foreign languages

  —

  58

  70

  English

  17

  46

  58

  Pupil:Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil to teacher ratios are for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) North Shropshire and (ii) England. [110072]
  415W
  Mr. Miliband
  The data requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: pupil teacher ratio January 2002

  Primary

  Secondary

  North Shropshire Parliamentary Constituency

  22.6

  16.9

  England

  22.5

  16.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Public Appointments
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made by his Department towards the aim in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", of encouraging applicants to public bodies from all parts of England; and what change there has been in the geographical diversity of appointees to NDPBs and other public bodies sponsored by his Department since the publication of the White Paper. [108558]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Vacancies for public appointments are publicised routinely by my Department in a range of national and local media, including its own website (www.dfes.gov.uk) and the new website (www.publicappts-vacs.gov uk) launched by the Cabinet Office in March 2003.

  All public appointments are made on merit. In the period since the publication of the White Paper on 14 May 2002 up until 31 March 2003, my Department made 48 new appointments to non-departmental public bodies. The distribution by residence of those appointed is detailed below.

  English region/country

  Number of new appointments

  North East

  2

  North West

  2

  Yorks and Humberside

  2

  East Midlands

  2

  West Midlands

  3

  East

  3

  South West

  3

  London

  12

  South East

  15

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Scotland

  2

  Wales

  1

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress the Department has made towards the aim in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of assessing the balance of staff between the centre and the regions in terms of effective policy design and implementation; and what examples there have been since the publication of the White Paper of the Department deciding between locating new streams of work(a) in and (b) outside London and the South East. [108568]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department is currently reviewing the deployment of its staff resources in the regions, with the aim of improving value for money. The review is about to report, and its recommendations will be considered in May.
  416W
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget plans to examine relocation of public services with the aim of achieving best value for money. He has asked Sir Michael Lyons— Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University— to advise on relocation by the next Spending Review.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress his Department has made towards the goal set out in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", of(a) ensuring that regional awareness and devolution feature strongly in civil service training and development, (b) increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices, regional offices and the Government offices and (c) encouraging interchange between the civil service and organisations in the regions. [108578]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office will be answering this question giving an overall civil service perspective.

  Since the publication of the White Paper in May 2002, there has not been any specific development of this Department's training and development programmes to raise awareness of devolution and regional awareness, but the recent launch of "Delivering Through People: A Human Resource Strategy for DfES" commits the Department to developing HR action plans to maximise the contribution of each of our four sites in delivering the Department's business.

  Interchange is the exchange of staff between the civil service and other public and private sector organisation in the regions for periods of a few weeks up to five years. Interchange promotes better understanding between organisations and is a practical and effective form of personal development as it gives staff first hand experience of a different work environment and the issue and challenges which the people working in it face. Secondees have an opportunity to learn new skills, new ways of working, and new ways of dealing with problems. The DfES is actively committed to making interchange available to peoples at all levels as it can be a real benefit to the individual and to the Department as a whole.

  From 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 interchange between HQ an organisations in the regions was 368, an increase of 9 per cent. on the previous year.

  School Curriculum
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many hours pupils spent on average per week studying(a) English, (b) mathematics, (c) physical education, (d) music and (e) history broken down by school year group, in each year since 1997. [110051]

  Mr. Miliband
  The amount of time spent on each National Curriculum subject is for individual schools to decide. Schools are required to cover the programme of study for each subject during the relevant key stage but are free to organise their timetable as they wish. The Department does not collect comparative data which relates to the average amount of time spent per week on a particular subject.
  417W
  In order to help schools plan their own timetable the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has produced non-statutory guidance suggesting how much time should be spent on each National Curriculum subject per week at key stages 1, 2 and 3.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what figures he has collated on the percentage of children who learn about poverty in developing nations at school. [109677]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department does not collect data centrally on the percentage of children who learn about poverty in developing nations at school. Through Citizenship, a statutory requirement in secondary schools from September 2002, pupils study global issues, including the political, social and economic implications. Through geography, a statutory requirement for 5 to 14-year-olds, pupils learn about different countries, their peoples and culture, including the concept of interdependence.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) temporary arid (b) permanent exclusions were made by (i) primary, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110135]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Information on pupils suspended (excluded for a fixed period) is not collected centrally. Following a review of data collected on exclusions, the Department is planning to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis from this summer.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have(a) opened and (b) closed sixth forms since 1997. [110108]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Annual Schools' Census can be used to estimate the number of schools with a sixth form and this information is shown in the table.

  Maintained secondary schools: number of schools with a sixth form 1997–2002

  Position in January each year

  1Number of schools with a sixth form

  1997

  1,740

  1998

  1,771

  1999

  1,777

  2000

  1,781

  2001

  1,763

  2002

  1,747

  1 A school is considered to have a sixth form if it has eight or more 16 year old pupils and eight or more 17 year old pupils (age as at 31 August)

  Schools Access Initiative
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in the Hemsworth 418W
  constituency benefited from the Schools Access Initiative in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and how much each school was awarded. [109864]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Schools Access Initiative (SAI) provides resources to help mainstream schools become accessible to pupils with disabilities. £220 million has been made available for the Initiative during the last three financial years, including £100 million for 2003–04, and the Government have recently announced a further £100 million per annum for 2004–05 and 2005–06. The funding is allocated to local education authorities and it is for each authority to decide its priority schemes.

  Wakefield local education authority, which includes the Hemsworth constituency, has received £1,029,428 in total through the SAI in the years 2000–03. The Authority has reported that the following schools in the Hemsworth constituency have received SAI funding as follows:
  2000–01
  Crofton High School: £47,093
  St. Wilfred's Catholic High School: £2,235
  Featherstone High School: £9,075
  Badsworth C of E Voluntary Controlled Junior and Infant School: £11,587.
  A sum of £58,011 was used to provide equipment to improve physical and curriculum access in schools across the authority.
  2001–02
  St. Thomas A Becket Catholic Comprehensive School: £84,445;
  St. Wilfred's Catholic High School: £5,599;
  Crofton High School: £4,396;
  Featherstone High School: £937;
  Badsworth C of E Voluntary Controlled Junior and Infant School: £60;
  Northfield Junior and Infant School: £500;
  Ackworth Howard C of E First School: £401.
  A further £80,000 was spent providing equipment to enable access to the curriculum in schools across the authority.
  2002–03
  Local education authorities are not due to report on their SAI expenditure for 2002–03 until 25 July 2003.

  Skilled Workers (Hemsworth)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) plumbers, (b) joiners, (c) electricians and (d) gas installers were employed doing domestic repair work in the Hemsworth constituency in 1993; and how many there are now. [109861]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Figures for those employed solely doing domestic repair work in the occupations requested are not collected. Figures for the occupations requested are also not available for parliamentary constituency area. Occupational classifications do not differentiate between plumbers and gas fitters—they are grouped together within the classification for plumbers, heating and ventilating engineers.

  The Labour Force Survey estimates the numbers employed for all types of work undertaken and within the UK regions. In 1993 there were 11,000 plumbers (including heating and ventilating engineers), 26,000 joiners and 32,000 electricians in Yorkshire and

  419W
  Humberside; and in 2003 there were 16,000 plumbers (including heating and ventilating engineers), 27,000 joiners and 24,000 electricians in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Special Educational Needs
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases concerning schools in the Hemsworth constituency were heard by Special Education Needs Tribunal in 2001–02; and in how many cases the Tribunal ruled that additional support should be provided for children with special needs. [109865]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Tribunal does not collate statistics based on the location of schools named in appeals or the schools attended by children who are the subject of appeals. However, it does collect information by local education authority (LEA). Of the 19 appeals against Wakefield LEA in 2001/02, five concerned the school to be named in the child's statement. Parents requested a special school placement in three of these appeals and a mainstream placement in the other two.

  Parents withdrew 10 of the 19 appeals and the LEA conceded a further four. The remaining five all concerned the detailed provision to be made for children, and in all of these the Tribunal ordered amendments to the provision specified in statements.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many former grant-maintained schools have gained(a) specialist, (b) beacon and (c) city academy status in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110139]

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

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have become specialist schools in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) specialism and (b) local education authority. [110142]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is provided in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Staff Salary Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the salary costs were for each LEA of(a) all staff, (b) all school staff, (c) school teaching staff and (d) school non-teaching staff in each year since 1997. [110096]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many errors in the repayment of student loans have been lodged with the Student Loans Company by(a) members of the public and (b) hon. Members in each of the last three years. [105180]
  420W
  Margaret Hodge
  The complaints received by the Student Loans Company (SLC) about the repayment of student loans from members of the public and hon. Members in the last three years is detailed as follows. The number of complaints needs to be set against the fact that by the end of February 2003 approximately 2.3 million borrowers were due to repay loans. The SLC investigates each complaint to see if an error has been made. The company cannot determine the number of complaints in which errors actually occurred without manually checking each individual complaint received.2000–01 financial year

  (a) members of the public — 171

  (b) Members of Parliament — 1

  2001–02 financial year

  (a) members of the public — 239

  (b) Members of Parliament — 7

  2002–03 financial year to date

  (a) members of the public — 288

  (b) Members of Parliament — 23

  Teachers
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many supply teachers are working in(a) the Hemsworth constituency and (b) England; [109862]

  (2) what percentage supply teachers represent of the total number of teachers in (a) the Hemsworth constituency and (b) England. [109863]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available at constituency level.

  Occasional teacher numbers (teachers on contracts of less than a month who were in service for the whole of the survey date) in the maintained schools sector in England are shown in table 17 of the January 2002 edition of Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England. This table shows data for January 2002, the most recent available. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0380/456-t17.htm.

  The following table shows occasional teachers as a percentage of the full-time equivalent number of teachers in the maintained sector at January 20021. The table shows figures for Wakefield local education authority because constituency level figures are not available.

  1 January 2002 is the most recent information currently available.

  Wakefield

  England

  Regular teachers1

  2,750

  419,620

  Occasional teachers2

  50

  17,470

  All teachers

  2,800

  437,100

  Occasional teachers as percentage of all teachers

  1.8

  4.0

  1 All teachers (FTE) on contracts of a month or more in service on the survey date (17 January 2002).

  2 Teachers on contracts of less than one month in service for the whole of the day on the survey date.

  Note:

  Teacher numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey.
  421W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers were provided each month, broken down by(a) LEA and (b) teacher supply agency in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002 to present. [110055]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Occasional teacher numbers (teachers on contracts of less than a month who were in service for the whole of the survey date) in the maintained schools sector in England are shown in table 17 of the January 2002 edition of Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England. This table shows data for January 2002, the most recent available. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DBA/OL/v0380/456-t17.htm.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teachers in England employed in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools are (i) under and including the age of 35 and (ii) over the age of 35 years. [110128]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proportion of full time teachers in the maintained sector by age1 and phase at March 20011 are given in the following table.

  Percentage of teachers by age

  Phase

  34 and under

  35 and over

  Nursery and primary

  34

  66

  Secondary

  30

  70

  1 Age as at 31 March.

  Notes:

  1.Figures are rounded.

  2. Data are provisional. 2001 is the most recent year for which these data are available.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were subjected to(a) verbal and (b) physical attacks in schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham in the last year. [109673]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department does not collect this information. Recording of such incidents will depend on local reporting procedures.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been attacked by(a) pupils and (b) parents, broken down by education authority, in each academic year since 1997. [110123]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23 October 2002,Official Report, column 385W.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been dismissed from their posts since June 2001. [110126]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.
  422W
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) head teachers, (b) deputy head teachers, (c) teachers and (d) classroom assistants have been suspended for misconduct from (i) primary, (ii) secondary, (iii) special and (iv) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110120]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate his Department has made of the amount of time spent by(a) deputy head teachers and (b) classroom assistants (i) reading and (ii) acting on circulars issued by his Department in each year since 1997; [110115]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount of time spent by head teachers dealing with (a) Government-produced circulars and (b) other work, expressed as a proportion of total time worked by head teachers, in each year since 1997: [110116]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the amount of time spent by classroom assistants dealing with (a) Government-produced circulars and (b) other work, expressed as a proportion of total time worked by classroom assistants, in each year since 1997; [110117]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the amount of time spent by teachers dealing with (a) Government-produced circulars and (b) other work, expressed as a proportion of total time worked by teachers, in each year since 1997; [110118]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the amount of time spent by deputy head teachers dealing with (a) Government-produced circulars and (b) other work, expressed as a proportion of total time worked by deputy head teachers, in each year since 1997. [110119]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not hold the information requested.

  The National Agreement on workload and standards, which was signed in January 2003, was a landmark event in terms of tackling teachers' and head teachers' workload; and enabling them to focus on the core professional activities that make the most impact in raising standards in schools. The signatories to the Agreement, including unions and employers, are now ensuring that it becomes a reality in schools. From this September, for example, a range of administrative activities that have routinely been undertaken by teachers will be transferred to support staff and information and communications technology. Resources are being made available to enable schools to recruit at least an additional 50,000 full-time equivalent support staff over the lifetime of this Parliament.

  We are committed to streamlining the flow of information to schools. We have put in place rigorous controls on the number of documents automatically sent to all schools and have achieved significant reductions. We plan to cut mailings by a further 50 per cent. in the 2002–03 academic year.
  423W
  In addition, we recently announced the establishment of an Implementation Review Unit. Made up of front line practitioners—the great majority serving head teachers—the Unit will review the workload implications of Government policies, and seek to remove any unnecessary paperwork and bureaucratic burdens.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what levels of support are available to students in serious financial difficulty; and what proportion of students did not pay tuition fees in each year since its introduction. [106085]

  Margaret Hodge
  In addition to loans of £4,815 in London (£3,905 elsewhere), students in serious financial difficulty can currently apply for discretionary help through Hardship Loans of up to £500 each year and grants from the Hardship Fund (where the average grant paid to a full-time undergraduate student in 2001/02 was £677).

  The cash amount set aside for Hardship Loans for students in institutions in England and Wales in 2002/03 is £26 million. The amount allocated through the Hardship Fund for students in institutions in England in 2002/03 is £59 million. This compares to total discretionary funding of £22 million provided through the Access Funds in 1997/98. From September 2004, we are replacing Hardship Loans and the Hardship Fund with discretionary grants via a single Access to Learning Fund.

  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so. The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic years 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a nil contribution towards the cost of their tuition is 45 per cent., 45 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively. The percentage of students making a partial contribution towards the cost of their tuition in academic years 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 is 20 per cent., 20 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that voluntary aided schools and LTCs are included in the London wide admissions programme; and if he will make a statement. [110218]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  LEAs have been given a statutory duty to co-ordinate the admissions process for all maintained schools in their area; this is first mandatory for applications for admission to schools in September 2005. From that time, all maintained schools —including voluntary aided schools—will have a duty to comply with the co-ordination 'scheme' for their area.424W
  I assume that by LTCs', you are referring to City Technology Colleges (CTCs). As independent schools, CTCs are not bound by admissions legislation, but my Department has written to each of them to strongly encourage their participation in coordinated arrangements.

  Young Carers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have specially identified teachers to respond to the needs of young carers on their school register. [109938]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

HEALTH

  Medicines (Access)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he is doing to help poor people get access to essential medicines. [110482]

  Mr. Lammy
  The addition to the extensive arrangements under which people are entitled to free Prescriptions the grounds of their age or medical condition, there are specific arrangements to help those on a low income. People who receive income support or income based on jobseekers allowance, or are entitled to or are named on an National Health Service Tax Credit exemption certificate are automatically entitled to free prescriptions. Other people on a low income can seek help under the NHS low income scheme.

  People who do have to pay charges and who need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription prepayment certificate which will save patients money if they need more than five items in four months or 14 items in 12 months.

  Beta Interferon and Glatiramer
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of HSC 2002/004 regarding the prescription plus scheme for Beta Interferon and Glatiramer; and if he will list the representations he has received from(a) NHS trusts, (b) strategic health authorities, (c) primary care trusts, (d) NGOs, (e) members of the public and (f) hon. Members regarding the scheme. [109711]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are 64 specialist neurology centres designated to initiate treatment under the risk-sharing scheme and the majority are now doing so. We estimate that around 300 new patients each month are starting to receive a drug treatment for their multiple sclerosis. Since May 2002, the Department's records indicate that we dealt with 28 parliamentary questions, 16 letters from hon. Members and Peers, 24 letters from the public and one letter from a primary care trust about the scheme. Officials have also dealt directly with written and telephone inquiries from a variety of sources.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109497]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's accounting system does not collect information in the form requested.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109445]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health is committed to transforming the health and social care system so that it produces faster, fairer services that deliver better health and tackle inequalities. For example, we have established a young people's reference group as part of the Quality Protects Programme so that we can hear the contemporary views of young people as we develop policy affecting them. In March 2001 we published a national service framework (NSF) for older people, which sets as a priority the elimination of age discrimination in access to, and quality of, health and social care services offered to older people. The NSF provides a programme of actions and milestones to be achieved over the next 10 years.

  On age discrimination in employment, age has been integrated into equal opportunities policies for Department of Health staff. The Department has taken action to tackle negative attitudes towards older staff through training on valuing diversity being rolled out to all staff and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics. The Department is discussing the recommendations of the Cabinet Office document "Winning the Generation Game" with the relevant trade unions.

  The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, makes clear that every member of staff in the National Health Service is entitled to work in an organisation which can prove that it is investing in improving diversity and tackling discrimination and harassment.

  The Department is considering the age issues in the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC and is working to ensure that the Department and NHS employers will comply with the new legislation on age discrimination in employment and vocational training when it comes into force in 2006.

  Ambulance Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 76W, on ambulance trusts, what information in relation to A&E waits by ambulances his Department has requested trusts to collect; and where that information is held. [107721]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has asked ambulance trusts to provide information on the number of delays of 15 minutes or more between the time of arrival of an ambulance at accident and emergency (A&E) and the hand-over of the patient to the care of the A&E staff.
  426W
  This information is fast track internal management information only and is not validated and is of poor quality. Coverage is not complete and interpretation of the definition is inconsistent and it is therefore not appropriate for publication under exemption 11 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Asthma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in identifying a vaccine to help asthma sufferers. [110317]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Heart and Lung Institute at the Imperial College, London is currently researching the development of a vaccine for asthma. The Institute has developed a prototype vaccine for people with an allergy to cats, which could eventually be applied to a range of allergens, including pollen and dust mites. 60 patients have received the prototype vaccine, with promising results. More work has to be done however, including extensive clinical trials. It will be necessary to establish whether the vaccine will pass the rigorous tests involved in the development of a new medicine.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government policy towards sufferers from asthma. [110335]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise that asthma is a distressing and debilitating condition for individuals, their carers and their families. Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in the United Kingdom and affects all age groups. Its cause, despite much research world-wide, is still not known.

  The national service framework (NSF) for children is being developed to set standards for the care of children and young people to ensure all children and young people have access to good quality care. We have agreed that asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, should be used as one of the exemplars which will accompany the main NSF framework report. These will illustrate how the standards should be applied to ensure that services delivered to children are effective and meet their needs.

  Schools also need to be involved in a child's asthma care plan. For this reason, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health jointly issued "A Good Practice Guide—Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs", which encourages local education authorities and schools to draw up medical support policies and put in place effective management systems to support pupils with medical needs, such as asthma.

  In addition, we have welcomed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on inhalers for children under five in September 2000 and for older children, aged five to 15, on April 11 2002. The NICE recommendations provide clear evidence based on guidance on the most suitable inhalers for children.

  Management of asthma mainly takes place in primary care. The chronic disease management programme, introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the general practitioner

  427W
  contract. Participating GPs, around 94 per cent. of the total, receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with asthma.

  A new general medical services contract agreement was launched on Friday 21 February 2003 which, if accepted by the profession, will lead to an unprecedented level of new investment in general practice to deliver a wider range of high quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients.

  People with asthma will also benefit from the expert patients programme. The programme will provide, through the national health service, training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. Expert patients can reduce severity of their symptoms, decrease their pain and increase their quality of life. 26 primary care groups or trusts are taking part in a pilot phase. One of these pilots—Medway Primary Care Trust, formerly Rainham and Gillingham Primary Care Group, in Kent—is proposing to focus self— management activity on people with asthma. The programme will be extended nation-wide by 2007.

  The NSF for older people has made a commitment to develop a service model on respiratory diseases in older people within the 10-year framework. The development of this service model will apply for all those who need these services regardless of their age, in a way similar to the current NSF service models on stroke and dementia.

  Control and Restraint Techniques
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the review by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence of the control and restraint techniques used in health settings will be(a) complete and (b) put into practice. [109316]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has commissioned the National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care to develop a clinical guideline on the short term management of disturbed (violent) service users in adult inpatient psychiatric settings. The guideline will cover, among other areas, the use of physical restraint. The guideline is expected to be complete by August 2004. Clinicians are expected to take NICE guidance fully into account once it is published.

  East Kent Acute Hospital Services
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are of the referral of the future of East Kent acute hospital services to the independent reconfiguration Panel. [108810]

  Ms Blears
  The independent reconfiguration panel has been asked to provide advice about the future of acute hospital services in East Kent under the following terms:Whether it is of the opinion that the proposals for change set out in the decision of 25 March 2002 will ensure the provision of safe, effective and accessible healthservices for the people of east Kent. And if not, why not.
  Any other observations the anel may wish to make in relation to the proposals for change.
  The panel's advice as to how to proceed in the speediest and most efficient manner
  in the interest of local people.
  To submit its recommendations by 1 2 June 2003.
  428W
  The terms of reference for the independent reconfiguration panel are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/configuringhospitals

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107761]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not undertaken any market testing exercises in 2002–03.

  MLX 291
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has undertaken on the implementation of MLX 291 by the Medicines Control Agency and its effect on(a) morbidity and (b) mortality in patient groups; and if he will make a statement; [109529]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the possibility of MLX 291 causing medicines to be decanted into unsuitable containers, with particular reference to those more easily accessible to children; and if he will make a statement; [109531]

  (3) what representations he has received on MLX 291; and if he will make a statement. [109530]

  Mr. Lammy
  Consultation letter MLX 291 contained proposals to introduce new regulations relating to paracetamol, aspirin and iron supplements in order to take account of the British Standard on Child Resistant Packaging for non reclosable packaging for pharmaceuticals—BS 8404. It also proposed that medicines containing more than 24mg of elemental iron per unit does as well as liquid paracetamol preparations will also, for the first time, i.e. current requirements applying to reclosable containers of solid dosage and paracetamol.

  The proposals contained in MLX 291 were based on advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) which considered published data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for England and Wales and from Hospital Accident Surveillance System (HASS) data, from the Department of Trade and Industry's (DTIs) consumer safety unit. The aim of the amended legislation is to reduce or prevent toxicity from accidental drug overdose in children, which results in nearly 150 hospital admissions per week.

  The existing requirements for child resistant packaging in the Medicines (Child Safety) Regulations 1975 (as amended) already contain a provision to allow patients to receive these medicines in a container which is not child resistant, if they wish to do so and make a specific request to a pharmacist or doctor to that effect. The proposed new regulations include an extended adult test on accessibility for those up to 75 years rather than 60 years of age under the old standard. There is currently no proposal to remove the existing provision to dispose these medicines in non child resistant containers given the many and various ways in which elderly patients now receive their medication, including home delivery from the pharmacy.
  429W
  The public consultation on the proposals started on 26 November and closed on 18 February 2003. A large number of responses have been received and the Medicines Commission will be consulted shortly. Once this process is complete, in accordance with the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the Agency intends to make copies of replies received publicly available.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from Parkinson's disease in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [109680]

  Mr. Lammy
  Neither national nor local statistics are collected on how many people suffer from Parkinson's disease in Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of Parkinson's Disease in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [110323]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information that is available is shown in the table and relates to finished consultant episodes (FCEs) involving Parkinson's Disease. A FCE s defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients suffering from Parkinson's Disease, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  Finished consultant episodes with main diagnosis "Parkinson's disease"—NHS hospitals England 1991–92 to 2001–02

  Number

  1991–92

  12,031

  1992–93

  11,483

  1993–94

  10,764

  1994–95

  9,731

  1995–96

  10,627

  1996–97

  10,855

  1997–98

  11,281

  1998–99

  10,389

  1999–2000

  10,099

  2000–01

  9,495

  2001–02

  9,420

  Notes:

  1. ICD10 codes G20-G22 have been used from 1995–96, ICD9 code 332 was used in previous years.

  2. Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 which are ungrossed.

  3. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital during the episodes.

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Prescription Charges (Fraud)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total cost to the NHS in England of(a) prescription charge evasion fraud and (b) measures to help reduce prescription charge evasion, including payments to pharmacists, in real terms, in each year since prescription charges were introduced; and if he will make a statement. [109544]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS) has an on-going programme of highly accurate 430W
  risk measurement exercises (accurate to plus or minus 1 per cent.) designed to reveal levels of losses and, through repeated exercises, reduction in such losses. The National Audit Office have audited this process and are satisfied to its accuracy. Phase one of these exercises (examining patient fraud losses) included pharmaceutical patient fraud. The following table details the results.

  Pharmaceutical patient fraud

  £ million

  Year data selected

  Fraud losses

  1998–99

  117

  1999–2000

  69

  A statistically valid sample of those prescriptions prescribed during March 2003 has been taken for a further measurement exercise to be completed. Further fraud reductions are anticipated and the figures will be produced later this year.

  There was no accurate measurement of pharmaceutical patient fraud prior to the commencement of these exercises in 1998–99.

  Point of dispensing (PoD) checks were introduced in all community pharmacies on 1 April 1999 to help deter this type of fraud. The check requires pharmacists to ask patients, who are claiming free prescriptions, if they have evidence to support their claim to exemption from prescription charges.

  In 1998–99, pharmacists received an addition to their global sum, of £1.85 million, for set-up costs to enable PoD checks to commence. In 1999–2000, a sum of £12.25 million, (at 1998–99 prices) for undertaking PoD checks was incorporated within the overall figure, representing 1.67 per cent. of the global sum. This sum covers pharmacists' NHS remuneration and has been uprated annually since then. The proportion for PoD checks is not separately identified.

  Where a patient wrongly fails to pay any amount in respect of NHS charges or obtains goods or services to which they are not entitled, the amended National Health Service Act 1977 (sections 122A and 122B) provides for a civil penalty charge to be imposed. The penalty charge is calculated as five times the recoverable amount, up to a maximum of £100, in addition to the original charge. In cases of non-payment a surcharge of up to £50 may be imposed. Between 1 August 2001 and 31 March 2003 £1,362,000 has been recovered through the penalty charge system.

  Regions White Paper
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress his Department has made towards the aim in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of assessing the balance of staff between the centre and the regions in terms of effective policy design and implementation; and what examples there have been since the publication of the White Paper of the Department deciding between locating new streams of work(a) in and (b) outside London and the South East; [108573]
  431W
  (2) what progress the Department has made towards the goal set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of (a) ensuring that regional awareness and devolution feature strongly in Civil Service training and development, (b) increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices, regional offices, and the Government Offices and (c) encouraging interchange between the civil service and organisations in the regions. [108583]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the Department of Health, over 40 per cent. of the Department's 4,900 staff are now based outside London and the south-east, including nearly 1,000 headquarters staff in Leeds. The Department's regional directors of public health and their teams are based in the Government offices of the regions. In addition, from October 2002, 28 strategic health authorities—located around the country—have assumed a range of functions previously undertaken by the Department. Further progress towards effective decentralisation is a major component of the Department's current change programme, which will in turn be reflected in training and development priorities. In the meantime, staff awareness of regional and devolution issues is being raised by a variety of means, including intranet sites, staff interchange, and extensive day-to-day contact with regional and local services.

  Shrewsbury Hospital Merger
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the respondees to the consultation on merger between the Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals were(a) in favour of and (b) against merger. [109698]

  Mr. Lammy
  The consultation on the proposed merger between the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals National Health Service Trust and the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust resulted in a total of 321 responses. Fifty three of these responses were letters and 268 responses were received on the response slip attached to the consultation document.

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD10 COO-D48) Cancer (neoplasms) Main operation (OPCS4 W37 to W39) Hip Replacement Operations, (OPCS4 KOI to K71) Heart Operations & Procedures. Cumulative Count of Finished In Year Admission episodes, admissions from waiting list and booked cases by waiting time group NHS Hospitals, Suffolk HA 1997–98 to 2001–02 by Trust

  Trust Code

  Trust

  Diagnosis/Operation

  Under 3 months

  More than 3 months

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  More than 12 months

  1997–98

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  24

  22

  21

  16

  15

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  42

  137

  112

  88

  63

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  6

  36

  24

  17

  3

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  27

  160

  108

  65

  31

  1998–99

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  21

  31

  25

  11

  7

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  69

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  55

  147

  111

  85

  59

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  10

  40

  26

  14

  9

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  8

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  33

  158

  107

  61

  36

  1999–2000

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  17

  31

  26

  18

  11

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  55

  12

  1—

  —

  —

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  60

  147

  120

  88

  54

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  15

  34

  28

  26

  18

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  23

  151

  131

  104

  60

  432W
  Thirty three written responses and 230 response slips supported the merger proposal. Eleven written responses and 38 response slips opposed the merger.

  A further nine written responses were received which gave a qualified support to the proposal.

  Shrewsbury Prison (Healthcare Manager)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the appointment by Shropshire primary care trust of a healthcare manager from HM Prison Shrewsbury. [109695]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Shropshire County Primary Care Trust reports that it has not made such an appointment. The PCT is in discussion with Her Majesty's Prison Shrewsbury about provision later this year of mental-health in-reach services, but no appointments have yet been made.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Indian Government and (b) the National Asylum Seekers Service on tackling tuberculosis. [106563]

  Ms Blears
  No discussions have taken place with the Indian Government. Discussions have been held between Department of Health and National Asylum Support Service officers in relation to providing health assessments and tuberculosis screening for asylum seekers soon after their arrival.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients waited more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months for (i) heart operations, (ii) cancer treatment and (iii) hip replacements in each NHS hospital trust in Suffolk in each year since 1997. [108776]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is shown in the tables.
  433W

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD10 COO-D48) Cancer (neoplasms) Main operation (OPCS4 W37 to W39) Hip Replacement Operations, (OPCS4 KOI to K71) Heart Operations & Procedures. Cumulative Count of Finished In Year Admission episodes, admissions from waiting list and booked cases by waiting time group NHS Hospitals, Suffolk HA 1997–98 to 2001–02 by Trust

  Trust Code

  Trust

  Diagnosis/Operation

  Under 3 months

  More than 3 months

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  More than 12 months

  2000–01

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  44

  39

  27

  21

  18

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  86

  6

  1—

  —

  —

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  53

  195

  137

  1ll

  85

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  27

  62

  54

  44

  36

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  26

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  22

  191

  167

  136

  90

  2001–02

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  125

  210

  167

  132

  101

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  86

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  RGQ

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  54

  217

  178

  140

  107

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Cancer (Neoplasms)

  72

  181

  145

  115

  93

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Heart Operations

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGR

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  Replacement of Hip Joint

  26

  193

  154

  118

  95

  due to reasons of confidentiality, figures below 5 have been suppressed.

  1. The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set, and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  2. The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  The data has been cumulated from grouped waiting time counts of admissions. An admission classified in the category 'more than 6 months' would also be counted in the 'more than 3 months' category. Total in year admissions from waiting list and booked cases can be calculated as the sum of the counts for 'under 3 months' and 'more than 3 months'.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether the Child Support Agency is able to make deduction from earnings orders against liable persons where their address is not known but their employer is known; and in how many cases this has been done; [109888]

  (2) whether the Child Support Agency is able to make deduction from earnings orders against liable persons rot resident in the United Kingdom but employed by a company based or registered in the United Kingdom; and in how many cases this has been done. [109889]

  Malcolm Wicks
  To make a deductions from earnings order the Child Support Agency needs only to know the name and address of the employer which must be registered in the UK; not necessarily based in the UK. Before the Deductions from Earnings Order is made the non-resident parent must be notified of his child support maintenance liability and any arrears. This may be done via his employer, for example if no home address is known. The non-resident parent must also be notified by his employer of the amounts to be deducted from earnings.

  We do not have information available to identify such cases. There are around 9,000 non-resident parents with a deductions from earnings order for whom the agency does not hold a valid postcode, these will include cases where the non-resident parent lives abroad.
  434W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what procedures are in place to claim child support from liable persons not resident in the United Kingdom; and in how many cases these have been applied. [109890]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A non-resident parent who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom but works for a company whose payroll is based in the UK may be liable for child support under the Child Support Act 1991. Wholly reliable information is not available; the best estimate is that in 2002–03 the Child Support Agency was able take such action in fewer than 200 cases. In other cases child maintenance can be applied for through the relevant courts in the country where the non-resident parent resides.

  Housing payments
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of local authorities spent their total allocation for Discretionary Housing Payments in 2001–02; how many claimants applied for assistance; how many were awarded DHPs; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the scheme. [105970]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Discretionary Housing Payments replaced exceptional hardship and exceptional circumstance payments from 2 July 2001. The scheme is funded in part by a central Government contribution to each local authority and any unspent contribution is returnable. Authorities may also spend more than the Government contribution, up to an overall limit.
  435W
  406 local authorities provided expenditure figures for the period 2 July 2001 to 31 March 2002, of which 3.9 per cent. spent their total Government contribution or more. Figures are not collected centrally on the number of people who apply for or receive Discretionary Housing Payments. However, statistical returns from 404 authorities show that a total of 20,563 awards were made between 2 July 2001 and 31 March 20021.

  We have commissioned the University of Birmingham to carry out a research project on how the Discretionary Housing Payment arrangements are operating. This will help us to determine a more effective mechanism of setting and distributing the Government's contribution to Discretionary Housing Payments for future years. The project is expected to report its findings later this year.
  1 Awards may be a single payment of a series of payments and more than one award may be made to an individual, for instance a person may receive separate awards to supplement Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Note:
  Returns from local authorities may be subject to revision.

  Source:
  Discretionary Housing Payment final claim form returns from local authorities to DWP, 2001–02.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105727]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 10 April 2003,Official Report, column 400W.

  Regions White Paper
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress his Department has made towards the goal set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of(a) ensuring that regional awareness and devolution feature strongly in Civil Service training and development, (b) increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices, regional offices and the Government Offices and (c) encouraging interchange between the Civil Service and organisations in the regions. [108579]

  Maria Eagle
  Staff within The Department are expected to be knowledgeable about the requirements and features of local labour markets, social trends and patterns and any legislative or funding issues which affect their region. Managers at various levels in our regional and district structure frequently obtain briefings, statistics concerning local labour market and other social trends. In addition, Policy makers and other Senior Managers are expected to maintain very close links and nurture relationships with Regional Development Agencies and other Government bodies and NGOs. This helps supplement knowledge gained from other sources, such as briefing information.
  436W
  Arrangements have been developed, as part of the programme of work to establish the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), to facilitate movement of staff between the component businesses of DWP. These Regional Change Implementation Programme Executive (RECIPE) arrangements ensure that migration of staff between and within businesses is effectively managed to avoid surpluses and shortfalls of staff, including movement of staff between headquarters and regional offices. RECIPE groups also liaise with other government departments and the Government Office in their region to ensure, for example, a. coordinated approach to recruitment, and to facilitate inter-departmental moves.

  DWP is an outward facing department and encourages its staff to. undertake interchange with a wide range of organisations, in particular those at a regional and local level, many of whom are our partners in the delivery of our business. Centrally held interchange records do not provide detailed breakdowns of all interchange activity and records of activity undertaken during 2002–03 are still to be collated from the regions and businesses. There have been positive moves undertaken by the DWP central Interchange Team to work with Government Offices on encouraging interchange between this department and the regions. The team has attended Interchange events in Government Office—North East and in London. In addition, the team has presented DWP Interchange proposals at the Heads of Personnel Forum in GO South West. Very recently the team has engaged with GO North East Staffing Forum to encourage interchange between our department and civil service departments in the region. Finally the DWP central team has developed strong working relationships in establishing opportunities for interchange with a number of government departments including: the Inland Revenue, Home Office and Cabinet Office.

  Third Age Service
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress his Department has made in respect of the Third Age Service. [108881]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government aims to deliver the Manifesto commitment to improve services for older people by better integrating health, housing, benefits and social care into a "third age service". To this end we are now managing the 6 Care Direct pilots in the South West to identify good working practices and incorporate them into improved local services.

  The Department has also been making considerable progress in working with other service providers e.g. Department of Health, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Local Authorities and the Voluntary Sector (Age Concern, RNIB, NACAB), assessing current services and identifying opportunities for integration. Partnership working is being developed between The Pension Service, Local Authorities with social care responsibilities, Primary Care Trusts and the Voluntary Sector.
  437W
  We are also looking at other opportunities beyond the Care Direct pilots to deliver services which can offer face to face contact for customers unable to use the telephone. These will build on existing initiatives offering a single point of contact through local surgeries or home visit.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against decisions on the payment of winter fuel allowance have been heard in each financial year since its inception; how many appeals have been upheld; and what the breakdown was of reasons for granting the appeals. [107162]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on the number of appeals is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given in the table.438W

  Appeals for winter

  Number heard

  Number upheld

  2000–1

  1008

  17

  2001–2

  163

  12

  Source:

  Winter Fuel Payment Centre records

  No appeals have yet been held for this winter (2002–03) but there are two awaiting allocation of dates for a tribunal hearing.

  The 29 appeals which were allowed concerned late claims. The tribunals' reasons varied according to the circumstances of the individual case but generally they found, on the evidence presented and in accordance with their interpretation of the relevant regulations, that some of the claims were made on time and others should have been paid automatically.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In my Written Statement of 11 April, 1 said that we would continue to adjust our forces deployed to the Gulf region as appropriate, withdrawing units whose tasks are complete, and in due course replacing those whose tasks continue.

  Decisive combat operations in Iraq are now complete, and coalition forces are increasingly focusing upon stabilisation tasks. It will therefore be possible to make further force level adjustments over the coming weeks while continuing to meet our responsibilities to the Iraqi people.

  For maritime forces, the re-deployment of Royal Navy vessels has proceeded as planned. HMS Ark Royal has now left the Gulf region and is due to return to the UK in mid-May accompanied by the destroyer HMS York and RFA Fort Victoria. In addition, we now plan to withdraw the helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, together with HMS Edinburgh and the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Fort Austin, Orangeleaf, Sir Bedivere and Sir Percivale. The RFA Sir Galahad, Sir Tristram and Bayleaf are undertaking a rolling programme of maintenance in Singapore to allow them to return to the Gulf to continue to provide support to the humanitarian assistance effort. Further vessels will remain there for the time being to conduct mine clearance operations and force protection.

  As the need for offensive air operations and close air support has significantly diminished, we can bring back further air assets. We have withdrawn around 45 aircraft from the Gulf region, both fixed and rotary wing, including Tornado F3 and GR4, Harrier GR7, Nimrod MR2, VC 10 and E3-D aircraft as well as Chinook and Sea King helicopters. A further 26 helicopters will be withdrawn at the same time as HMS Ocean.

  For land forces, conditions now allow for the return of a further 3,500 personnel to the UK. This will include 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, with elements of 26 Regiment Royal Artillery, 38 Engineer Regiment and 1st Battalion The Light Infantry. It will also include a number of individuals who were attached to a wide variety of ground units and formations to perform specific augmenting roles. Returning forces are due a period of post-operational tour leave to which they are entitled,
  16WS
  following which they will begin to prepare for training and then redeployment on other important operational taskings. In some cases, this will mean a return to Iraq to take part in continuing operations. In addition, we intend to withdraw 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, who were the first of the land formations to be deployed, during the course of May.

  We will now begin to prepare 19 Mechanised Brigade to take over from forces previously involved in combat operations in Iraq, allowing us to meet the continuing task of providing a stabilisation force within the UK area of operations. We would expect them to start this new task in July, commencing preparations immediately.

  In spite of these changes significant pressures remain on the Armed Forces if they are to meet the full range of their commitments. In order to meet our continuing obligations in Iraq, I have authorised the issuing of further call-out notices, against the Order made in January under section 54(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, sufficient to generate up to 1,200 reservists. There will be a requirement to call out further reservists as the operation proceeds, and I will keep the House informed of our plans. In parallel, we will be starting to demobilise those Reserves who are returning home. In time, the overall numbers of Reserves required in Iraq will reduce significantly. I have also decided to extend the tour of the 1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment, enabling them to continue in their key role of ensuring security in the region of Az Zubayr.

  While details continue to be clarified, we envisage that by mid-May 25,000–30,000 UK Service personnel will remain deployed in the Gulf region, continuing to fulfil our responsibilities towards the Iraqi people. The planned replacement of forces is clear evidence of our commitment to them.

  Our aim is to leave an Iraq that is confident, secure and fully integrated with the international community. The planning process to establish the precise level of the continuing UK presence needed to achieve this aim is a dynamic one, and is kept under review. We will also need to take account of the contributions of coalition partners. We will continue to withdraw assets and personnel from the region where possible, but we will maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as necessary.

TRANSPORT

  Ports
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  The Department for Transport is today publishing aProject Appraisal Framework for Ports. The framework is designed to be used by promoters of port projects when they are seeking planning and other approvals. It sets out a template for the presentation of appraisals. The framework should contribute to making proceedings at public inquiries more transparent and focussed to the benefit of promoters, objectors and decision-makers. The development of a project appraisal framework for

  17WS
  port developments is a specific initiative arising from our ports policy document, Modern Ports: A UK Policy.

  The framework is advisory, and not a statutory requirement, but I hope that ports will use it to organise and summarise material supporting the case for port projects. The framework should be used for port projects in England and Wales. Port projects in Scotland are covered by the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG). In order to minimise the burden on ports the framework defines the particular status and size of projects that should be covered by the framework. The framework would not normally apply to commercial or residential developments in a port area (these might be dealt with by local planning procedures), but would potentially apply to port developments servicing all types of merchant ships, fishing vessels and leisure craft.

  In the past the appraisal and approval of port developments have been dealt with largely separately from other modes. The intention of the framework is to make the appraisal of port projects both more consistent with other modes and more consistent with each other and to take full account of the role of ports in promoting sustainable transport. Use of the framework should also enable the appraisal to assess the performance of projects against the government's objectives for transport concerning safety, economy, the environment, integration and accessibility. The framework broadly follows the guidance for appraising projects in other modes, such as highway schemes, local transport schemes and airports, but also reflects the particular circumstances of ports where most investment is financed by private sector companies operating in a competitive market.

  The publication of this framework follows consultation undertaken last year with port operators, port users, environmental groups, local authorities and other interested parties. The comments received during the consultation have proved to be very helpful in developing the framework. I am grateful to those organisations and individuals that took part in the consultation.

  As well as the framework the Department has also prepared a summary of responses to the consultation and a commentary on these responses. All these documents are available from the Department for Transport and on the Department's web site. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Younger Travellers
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  Research shows that 16–30 year olds are the least prepared of all British travellers. Today, therefore, the Government is launching a special campaign aimed at younger travellers. It will offer vital information to help young Britons avoid getting into difficulties overseas by making them aware of some simple precautions they can take before heading off.

  The campaign will offer advice to those taking a range of trips, from weekend breaks, gap years, or summer package holidays to those going off on adventure sports trips or on honeymoon.

  Overseas travel is an important opportunity for young people. But we need to ensure that the experience is not spoilt by unnecessary problems or accidents. Time spent on research and preparation in advance of a trip can save a great deal of trouble and heartache later.

  Every year people have distressing experiences. Most think that it could never happen to them. Sadly, it can and it does. That's why the Government is launching this campaign.

  This youth mini-campaign forms part of the FCO's ongoing Know Before You Go campaign which, working with over 160 travel industry partners, encourages travellers to be better prepared before travelling overseas. The FCO website www.fco.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo/ provides tips for travel overseas including guidance on taking out travel insurance, travel advice and checklists for specific groups such as backpackers and independent travellers, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender travellers, women travellers and those visiting friends and relatives overseas.

TREASURY

  European Community Finances
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  I have today laid before Parliament the Statement on the 2003 Community Budget, entitled "European Community Finances" (Cm 5800). This White Paper is the twenty-third in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community Budget. It also describes the Community Budget for 2003 as adopted by the European Parliament, and details the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the Community Budget for calendar years 1997 to 2003 and financial years 1997/98 to 2002/03.

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

Inflation
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why public sector inflation is higher than overall inflation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, because of the difficulties in measuring public sector output, the implied government consumption deflator from the national accounts may not necessarily give a good guide to genuine inflation in the public sector.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I would like to wish him a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I would not like to spoil his birthday, but …
I ask the noble Lord to consider the charts on page 224 of the Red Book, as I know that he will be familiar with them. The charts show that public sector employment is rising sharply but private sector employment is flat-lining. They show that private sector pay increases are rising at a much slower rate than public sector pay increases. Does the Minister agree that that is a classic recipe for yet more tax increases?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, wishes to say to the 9,400 additional teachers who have been employed since 1997, the 26,000 additional school support staff, the 39,000 additional nurses, the 10,000 additional doctors, and the 5,000 additional consultants, all of whom contribute to the quality of our public services, that their services are not wanted—that is what she is implying by criticising the increase in public sector employment—she is at liberty to do so. I would rather not be in her shoes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, leaving aside the solution to the world's inflation problems that the noble Baroness gave us, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor referred to the advantages of switching from the RPIX measure of inflation to the HICP measure used in Europe and in most, if not all, of the G7 countries, other than Japan? The Chancellor said that he would,
"continue to examine the detailed implications".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/4/03; col. 273.]
690
Can the Minister say when the implications will be reported?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a rather theoretical debate that has gone on for many years, and I do not think that it will come to a rapid conclusion.
With regard to the Question on the Order Paper, my noble friend Lord Barnett will know, as the Opposition appear not to know, that, for more than 20 years, public expenditure has been calculated at current prices and then deflated by a common deflator across the public and private sector.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way to bring public sector wage levels into line with local market conditions is to introduce regional pay bargaining, which was mentioned by the Chancellor in the Budget speech? When will the Office for National Statistics publish the first regional inflation figures to enable such regional pay bargaining to be undertaken?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an extremely constructive suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to say that the Chancellor has raised the issue. There are difficulties, as well as possibilities. Some people will lose out.
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question about the ONS, and I will have to write to him on that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his Answer to my noble friend was less than generous? The figures and information that he gave about expenditure in the public sector represent only half an explanation; the other half is the state that public services are in.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was encouraged by my noble friends to go on with the list, but I will not go on for as long as I could. I shall give an example of the achievement of 11 year-olds in our schools since 1997. The expected level of achievement in English has gone up from 63 per cent to 75 per cent since 1997; in maths, it has gone up from 67 per cent to 73 per cent since 1997. I could, at great length, give comparable results for the National Health Service.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I also wish the Minister many happy returns. Will he imagine, as his birthday treat, having the opportunity to listen in on a class being given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps to the 11 year-olds he mentioned? The Chancellor would be saying something like, "My income is rising by 1.5 per cent a year; my spending is rising by 8 per cent a year; I will borrow the money to fill the hole; what will I get for my 8 per cent extra spending?" The answer would have to be, "Not much". As I am sure the Minister knows, three-quarters of the extra spending—the 8 per cent—is disappearing in public sector inflation, which is running at a level three times higher than inflation in the rest of the economy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my imagination is fertile, but it is not fertile enough to allow

691
me to imagine the Chancellor uttering a farrago like that. I have already made it clear that the supposed distinction between public sector and private sector inflation is phoney—totally phoney. It has not been seriously used by any government, including governments of the noble Lord's persuasion, for more than 20 years.
As to the question of what we get out of increased expenditure in the public services and the accusation that it is based on wage growth, since 1997 wage growth in the public sector has been, on average, 3.8 per cent a year, and, in the private sector, it has been 4.6 per cent a year. That gives no credibility to the suggestion that the money going on public services goes on wage inflation.
The point is that these measures of inflation do not reflect quality. The same amount of extra spending on education could be achieved by doubling the incomes of teachers or by halving class sizes. In fact, it is achieved by the latter. They both give the same effect on so-called public sector inflation, but they do not reflect quality.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, instead of trading statistics, as both sides have been doing across the Chamber, would not everyone be satisfied if the Minister were to say that he considered that the amount of money going into public services during the past 12 months had been properly spent and that we are obtaining value for money?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that subjective judgments of that sort ought to be based on statistics and facts. I do not prefer subjective judgments or perceptions to the facts.

Prison Population
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the number of offenders serving prison sentences in England and Wales has been increasing.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the prison population on Friday 25th April 2003 was 72,890. This is a 4 per cent increase from the equivalent Friday one year ago. Of that total, the number of sentenced prisoners was 59,991 and the number of remand prisoners was 12,897.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Are the reports correct that the number of prison inmates is now the largest since records have been kept and that by 2006 it is forecast that more than 90,000 places in prison will be needed and fewer than 80,000 places will be available? If that is so, do the Government seek a reduction in custodial sentences?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to the question on whether the number of inmates is now
692
the highest since records began, I do not know when records began, but it is certainly the highest in living memory. As far as capacity is concerned, there is an on-going building programme under the 2000 and 2002 budget allocations. Two new prisons are being built. In addition, in the most recent Budget the Chancellor assigned further money to the building of more prisons.
Do we think that fewer people should be sent to prison? It is for the judge to decide in each case whether custody is appropriate. Custody would normally be appropriate for serious offences, for dangerous and sexual offenders and for persistent offenders. As regards estimates of the prisoner population, as a rule we consider that it is unwise to speculate what the total may be in three or four years' time.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the number of women prisoners, which has increased enormously in recent years, is still increasing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there were 4,454 female prisoners last Friday, which is an increase of 2 per cent on the previous year. It rose more dramatically in the past so it is levelling off now, but it has risen during the past few years.
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Bishop!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I hear the call of the Lord—it is the Bishop!
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for identifying my wish to speak with the voice from above. I know that the Minister is as concerned as many of us about the effect of the rate of reoffending on prison numbers. I know that a great deal of attention is being given to that issue. Would he be prepared to look at the issue of confidentiality between the various agencies involved in resettlement'? There is some concern that it would not be possible for the necessary level of co-operation to occur between and among the agencies concerned with resettlement. That would affect the ability of the resettlement programme to achieve the reduction in reoffending which, for example, the Social Exclusion Unit report—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord himself—would wish. Will the Minister let it be known what, if any, obstacles to co-operation inter-agency confidentiality might present?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, the Government would be prepared to look at that extremely important issue. If the employment service, the housing authorities, the social services, the prison authorities and the probation service can share information within the law, that would frequently help

693
the resettlement prospects of the individual offender. One of the great difficulties is that the precise law is incredibly complex and there is no confidence among many agencies as to exactly when they can share information. It is an issue which needs to be considered. It has been highlighted in the Social Exclusion Unit report on how best to promote resettlement and it is something that we are considering.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have two short questions and that is why I sought to speak before the right reverend Prelate. First, what proportion of those in prison have been found guilty of offences within two years of leaving prison? Secondly, what is the average length of prison sentence now? Has it gone up, remained the same or gone down?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in terms of the rate of reoffending within two years of release—let us assume 1998 is the date of release—for all prisoners, the reoffending rate is 59 per cent; for adult male prisoners, it is 55 per cent; for young male prisoners, it is 74 per cent; and for all female prisoners, it is 52 per cent. I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord off the top of my head what the average length of prison sentence is but I shall write to him.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, when the crime rate is falling, the prison population is rising? Does he know that we are now top of the league in terms of prison population in western Europe?
The noble and learned Lord just gave the figures in respect of offenders. Eighty-four per cent of juvenile offenders are reconvicted within a period of two years. What advice can be offer to sentencers to ensure that intensive training, supervision and severance programmes are in place and that the probation service has sufficient resources to deal with these youngsters?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, as regards the relationship between the increasing number of people being held in prison and a reduction in the crime rate, I think that everyone is unclear about whether there is a link and, indeed, what it is that makes the crime rate rise or fall. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is some connection between the two.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me what advice I would give to sentencers. Obviously I would advise that one of the most important roles played by sentencers is to meet the need to reduce the rate of reoffending. Seeking to reduce the rate of reoffending helps society as a whole. More resources must be provided for the probation service. Since 1997, the amount of money given to the service has risen in excess of 50 per cent because this is such an important issue.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, did the original figure quoted by the Minister include people being held on remand as opposed to convicted prisoners? If
694
it did not, can he tell me how many people are being held on remand? They might end up not going to prison, although in the meantime they are occupying prison space.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the figure did include those being held on remand. In my response, I broke down the figures. The total figure was 72,890. Sentenced prisoners—that is, those who have been convicted of a criminal offence—total 59,991. Those being held on remand—that is, awaiting trial—total 12,897.

Local Food Producers
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take as a result of the report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Local Food—A Snapshot of a Sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this report was produced by a cross-departmental working group on local food and published three weeks ago, on 9th April. The group's aims were to consider the evidence relating to the impact of local food initiatives and the wider issues relating to local food so that government policy in this area could be developed. A number of government departments and agencies are considering what action they need to take in the light of the report. DEFRA will produce a policy paper on local food by the end of June.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that, as a special birthday treat, the noble Lord's colleagues at DEFRA have given him an opportunity to answer my Question. I urge the Government to address this issue. Will the policies to be developed and subsequent actions taken be those that favour the small producers identified in the report as extremely important to the local food sector? Over the past five years, small producers have been disadvantaged by the implementation of almost every government policy covering issues concerning both food and farming.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to be able to answer the Question, not least because during the briefing session officials were able to tell me where my nearest farmers' markets are here in London. As a devotee of such markets, I shall be taking advantage of that information.
As regards small producers, while of course I cannot anticipate what we shall say in June, I could not conceive that any policies we may choose to adopt would not be in favour of small producers. That is the essence of the entire local food movement. I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, thinks

695
that government policies have discriminated against local food. That certainly is not the lesson I draw from the recently published report.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a small producer of goats' cheese. I can reassure the Minister that despite all the regulations, provided that one works carefully with the environmental health officer, the trading standards office and the dairy inspection unit, one can get on very well. Provided that one obeys the rules, there are no problems. It is those who sail a little close to the wind who are suffering. They are in need of extra care from the regulating authorities.
Given that we are considering food safety, does the noble Lord agree that very few small food producers in the farming sector are responsible for causing outbreaks of food poisoning and that these are much more likely to emanate from the catering sector?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am greatly reassured by the comments of the noble Countess with regard to small food producers, based on her own experience. I do not have evidence on where outbreaks of food poisoning originate as between producers and later stages in the food chain. However, my gut feeling—perhaps I should not use that expression—is that it is much more likely that such outbreaks would occur at later stages of the food chain rather than at the level of small producers.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the report take account of the astonishing fact that a higher tax is paid on a lorry-load of tomatoes being transported from Suffolk to London than is paid for an entire jumbo jet full of tomatoes flown in from South Africa?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, airport taxes are a little wide of this Question. The issue of food miles, to which I believe the noble Lord is referring, is an important element considered in the report. A number of examples are given. This is a very practical report, citing real case histories of what has been successful. A reduction in food miles is good not only in terms of freshness of the produce, but also from a transport point of view.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many small abattoirs have been closed down over the past five years? Given that they are enormously important to small producers trying to market their produce, what are the Government's plans for reversing the process of closure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not seen any reference to small abattoirs in the report, although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is right to make the point that if meat products are to be sold as local food, then the availability of local
696
abattoirs is important. However, since no reference was made to local abattoirs, I do not have the statistics the noble Lord asks for. I shall have to write to him.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can I help the Minister by saying that references to local abattoirs are made in the report and their importance is certainly emphasised.
The potential for growth in the sale of local food and the need for infrastructure support are important points identified in the report. Also considered is the uncertainty in the minds of many consumers as regards exactly what constitutes a local product. Does "local" mean produce from a nearby farm, from the county or from within the UK? That question is exemplified in the quotation from Sir Peter Davis on page 12 of the report. Would the Government be prepared to consider the implementation of this report alongside the excellent recent report from the Commercial Farmers' Group, The Case for a UK Agriculture Industry and a National Food Security Policy? That is not a snappy title, but it is a good report. If that were done, the future of local food would be seen to form part of a renewed commitment to national food security, something which so many of us would welcome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that will teach me to read reports more carefully. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and to the House.
There is an issue reflected both in the report and in government thinking about whether we should seek to define what is meant by "local food". From what I have been reading, the first conclusion I draw is that it is not particularly helpful to enforce a definition. What is the difference between food that comes either 29 or 31 miles away from the place of sale? The second conclusion I draw, which fits in with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, is that government policies must be supportive rather than prescriptive. That is because so much of what is successful in local food projects is due to the entrepreneurship of individuals and groups of people rather than government encouragement. We must avoid putting obstacles in the way, but it is people themselves who benefit from local food projects and they must constitute the driving force.

India and Pakistan
3 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the joint statement of 27th March by the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary on steps to reduce tension between India and Pakistan, they have any further initiatives in mind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are continuing to work

697
closely with our international partners, particularly the United States, to encourage further de-escalatory moves on both sides. It is important that both countries start and sustain a process aimed at building confidence, normalising bilateral relations and resolving outstanding differences, including Kashmir. As part of this effort, US Deputy Secretary of State Armitage will be visiting the region in early May. United Kingdom contact with the Indian and Pakistani Governments will continue through our high commissioners, as well as through planned contacts with senior visitors from the two countries in May and June.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, having broken the taboo, which has lasted for 30 years, that all matters of dispute between India and Pakistan are to be settled solely through bilateral negotiations under the Simla Agreement, will not the Government take this matter a stage further and agree that the poor relations between New Delhi and Islamabad constitute a threat to international peace that justifies consideration by the Security Council under chapter 7 of the charter? In this connection, will the Government consider proposing that UNMOGIP, the UN observer force on the boundary between Indian and Pakistani-held Kashmir—which is the longest-standing United Nations mission in history—should be asked to play a more active role, particularly in reporting on the shelling across the line of control and on which side is mainly responsible for it, so that the international community can see what are the facts?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. In terms of the relationship between India and Pakistan there has been a focus on this being an issue that the two countries have to resolve. Our position remains the same. A dialogue between India and Pakistan on these issues is very important. That is why the recent statement by India's Prime Minister is very helpful. The international community's role should be to support these efforts. That is why the visit of the Deputy Secretary of State will be important and why the visits here in May will be important. The UN is involved. I take the noble Lord's point about the monitoring of action across the line of control, a matter which he knows the international community takes very seriously. We saw an escalation in that violence last year. That violence has now de-escalated but we are keeping a close eye on the situation. If there is a further role for the United Nations, then of course there will be discussions in that forum.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great concern that the impunity of the perpetrators of past and present human rights abuses in Kashmir continues without the full investigation of incidents? Would Her Majesty's Government support international investigation of massacres of civilians, including the massacre of Sikhs which took place on the eve of President Clinton's visit to India? Will Her Majesty's Government ask the Indian Government to allow Amnesty International and other international human rights organisations to visit Kashmir in order
698
to investigate some of the excessive abuses of human rights? Would the Government support a special rapporteur on Kashmir such as there is on Sudan and other countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that we have condemned all violence associated with the differences between India and Pakistan, particularly in relation to Kashmir. Indeed, the statement recently made by my right honourable friend Jack Straw and Colin Powell while they were at Camp David was made in response to that violence, which they condemned. We shall continue to condemn that violence and we shall continue to talk to India and Pakistan about our concerns. The important first step has already been taken through the dialogue which has started on both sides. We hope that this will lead to the investigation of massacres that have taken place. It is very important that both sides should have a degree of confidence in the longer term.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question gives the House an opportunity to join in the universal condemnation of the particularly horrific massacre at Nadimarg which took place towards the end of last March? While both sides have a duty to participate in seeking a peace process, does the Minister agree that, as regards the line of control, Pakistan has a particular responsibility to attempt to identify who committed this appalling atrocity and to bring them to justice? Will the Minister join with me in welcoming the fact that the American Secretary of State and the American Government, together with our own Secretary of State, are focusing their minds on this problem in a thoroughly constructive way which should bring benefits in the future?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have made our position absolutely clear in regard to the violence at the end of March. It was the trigger for the statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell and my right honourable friend Jack Straw. I agree that we need to raise our serious concerns in our discussions with both sides. The noble Lord will know that we have been engaged in discussions with the Pakistani authorities about our concerns in regard to terrorism. We welcome the strong moves that they have made in that direction.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a little more effort by the British Government to try to get Pakistan back as a full member of the Commonwealth would be helpful, especially before President Musharraf pays a visit to this country in about six weeks' time?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the issue of Pakistan is one of the items on the agenda of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is to meet in May. The group will make its own recommendations. It is important that we and the wider Commonwealth remain closely engaged with

699
Pakistan, particularly through the transition process. We want to see the Commonwealth helping to sustain the process through technical and other kinds of assistance.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My lords, is it true that when Pakistan was set up Kashmir was promised a plebiscite as to its future? If so, how do the Government regard the holding of such a plebiscite in Kashmir?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is not quite as straightforward as that. There are very different views about whether or not such a plebiscite was promised. We have always said that it is important that India and Pakistan engage in close dialogue on this issue. That dialogue process has started and we wish to support it. The visits which are due to take place in May will be an important part of that process. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a lengthy background brief on this matter.

The Welfare State
3.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What policies the Prime Minister was announcing when he told the Financial Times of Monday 28th April that "what we have got to do is fundamentally to redraw the way the 1945 welfare state settlement is implemented".
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government are proud of the achievements of the 1945 Labour Government in creating a welfare state in that age of austerity. Half a century on, we believe that deprivation and social injustice are best tackled by higher quality public services, implemented in line with four principles of public sector reform; namely, by the delivery of national standards of service through clear frameworks of accountability; by devolving and delegating to the front line; by promoting greater flexibility to respond to local needs; and by offering more choice to the users of public services.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I asked the Question because I do not understand what the Prime Minister means. Can the Minister explain further what the four principles mean in practice? Can he give any examples of measures which might illustrate them in implementation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I recommend to the noble Earl the Fabian Society pamphlet of last September in which the Prime Minister explained why the reform of public services is the route to social justice. The first chapter is entitled "Beyond the 1945 Settlement". The first principle speaks to a problem that we have seen for half a
700
century—that is, that the poorest sections of our society receive the poorest public services. We therefore have a radical and challenging aim of trying to create national standards of quality across the whole country. That will be best supported by the devolution of more authority and budgets to the front line; by greater flexibility for people on the front line to make the kind of decisions that offer a much more personalised service than people would have been able to have, or even look for, in 1945; and, of course, by building greater choice across areas such as the National Health Service. I cannot go into greater detail in my response, but much of the information is contained in the pamphlet, which I will happily make available to the noble Earl.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as I was elected to another place in 1945 and well recollect what happened during the years that followed, may I remind the Minister—because it does not seem clear from his statement—that the then Conservative opposition voted in favour of the National Insurance Act and another one dealing with industrial injuries insurance, which have stood the test of time very well and been amended from time to time? But the Conservative government and the National Liberals, of whom I was then one, voted against the National Health Service Act, and that part of the reforms has never succeeded as well as people hoped. Will the Government please concentrate now on getting that right?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I say again that we on this side of the House are intensely proud of what that 1945 Labour government achieved with regard to the creation of the National Health Service. I accept that there have been other areas of progressive legislation—one thinks of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 and the National Insurance Act 1911 from the Liberals. Such examples come less readily to mind when I think of the Conservative Party's contribution in this area.
We believe that the core values of fairness and opportunity for all that this Government promote are predicated on increased prosperity, because that prosperity allows us to make public investment on the scale that the Chancellor has announced in recent years, with an extra £63 billion going into public sector investment over the next few years. But we have made it clear that that kind of unparalleled investment should be linked to reform.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister is on record as saying that the values which underpin the 1945 settlement are to be maintained? It is the implementation which is to be altered, according to the circumstances which apply today.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Those values of fairness, support and opportunity are enduring, but times obviously have changed radically since 1945. In the post-war era, after the arbitrariness of provision in

701
pre-war times, people were therefore understandably very grateful for the state's ability to provide support to a sometimes very basic standard on a more universal basis, with access free at the point of use. We wish to make sure that we defend universal provision and access free at the point of use, but we want also to ensure, given all the changes that there have been in the past half-century, that we can offer more personalised services to people using our public sector and that we work with increased investment, more flexible labour forces and the new technologies to deliver that.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, may I draw to the Minister's attention one particular aspect of the welfare state which could reasonably be fundamentally reconsidered at this stage the way in which funds are made available for care of the elderly? Currently they are through two separate streams, the Department of Health and social security. This is not good from the point of view of the individual in need of care, nor is it an efficient way to use public money in facing up to a major issue.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I will leave the detail of the response to another Minister at another time. In general terms, I take the point that much of our delivery is complicated by red tape. Indeed, our attempts to deliver cross-cutting services can at times be in danger of creating more demands for audited information, and so on. We are therefore intent on trying to reduce the burden of red tape and of poor regulation, and I am delighted that in addition to all the work that the Prime Minister has put into this area, the Chancellor, in his Budget, said that the reform of regulation—the reduction of red tape—is one of the priorities that he will be imposing on departments.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Morris of Manchester and the Lord Pendry set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled People
3.16 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to call attention to initiatives to enhance the well-being and status of people with disabilities in the context of the European Year of Disabled People and the Charter for the New Millennium for disabled people worldwide; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords,
"I wept because I had no shoes",
said the poor orphan—
"until I saw a boy who had no feet".
This debate is about people with no limbs at all; others who are both blind and prelingually deaf; and those trying to cope with often devastating effects of chronic mental ill-health or severe learning difficulties, among Britain's 8.6 million disabled people.
I am delighted the debate has brought together so many specialists in this policy area. Others would be with us if they could have been, including my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Healey, to whom I shall refer again as I proceed. Among them, too, is my noble friend Lord Jones, who worked with me in the service of disabled people as a fellow Minister in the 1970s, and whose friendship I value deeply.
I am especially glad that my good and noble friend Lord Ashley is here. We have been close friends and parliamentary colleagues for 37 years now, and his contribution to improving the quality of life of disabled people is immeasurable.
The Motion calls attention to the European Year of Disabled People (EYDP) and the Charter for the New Millennium, because it is in the context of their objectives that initiatives here will ultimately be assessed. Thus I want briefly to summarise their aims. In the case of the charter, I do so having chaired the World Planning Group appointed by Rehabilitation International (RI) to draft the document. RI is the coordinating body for disability organisations in over 100 countries. Its affiliates in Britain include Rehab UK, RADAR and the Disability Rights Commission. The European Year's website states that its,
"objective is to drive progress towards achieving equal rights for disabled people",
and that activities to promote EYDP—launched in Athens three months ago—would be decided and organised by the disability community in each country.
The statement of objectives stresses the multiple discrimination facing the EU's 37 million disabled people, who are two to three times more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled people and only half as likely to reach higher education. The Charter fir the New Millennium, launched three years earlier here at the Palace of Westminster, at a service in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft in December 1999, insists on,
"the same human and civil rights for people with disabilities as for everyone else".
It insists also that
"disabled people's organisations must be empowered with the resources necessary to share responsibility in national planning for rehabilitation and independent living"
and urges,
"every nation to develop a comprehensive plan with clearly defined targets and timetables for implementing the aims set out in this Charter".
Its principal aims call for a UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People as a key strategy; action worldwide to protect millions of the world's poor from disabilities that are easily preventable at minimal cost; and international development programmes that mandatorily require accessibility for disabled people in all infrastructure projects.
My noble friend Lady Hollis, who knows how glad I am that she is here, said when responding to EYDP for the Government on 11th February that they proposed,
"to use the European Year to raise awareness of disability issues—especially rights and participation—throughout the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 11/2/03; col. 553.]
She listed the projects involving disabled people funded by the Government to mark EYDP. They outnumber those approved in any other European country and include a national disabled people's Parliament of 180 elected members, drawn from around Britain and reflecting both cultural diversity and the whole range of impairments.
Of course, the Government's response to EYDP goes very much further than funding projects. It includes legislative changes to protect more than 1 million young people from discrimination in educational services; brings 7 million more jobs and 1 million more small employers under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); and strengthens the Act as it affects employment, access and the built environment. A new disability Bill, which it is hoped will address the Act's still major deficiencies in, among other areas, transport, housing and the defining of disability, has also been announced.
Bob Niven, whom all of us respect for his achievements as the DRC's first chief executive, describes the Government's initiatives, taken together, as a,
"fine way to mark the European Year".
All that reflects well on Ministers but also on the high standing and influence of the All-Party Disability Group of MPs and Peers, chaired so ably by my noble friend Lord Ashley.
As the author of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was systematically obstructed in another place from 1991 to 1995, I naturally very much welcome the Government's new initiatives, as I did the honouring of their pledge to legislate for a Disability Rights Commission (DRC). Without it, the DDA was a car without an engine and the achievements of Bert Massie, Bob Niven and their colleagues at the DRC could never have been attempted.
Turning to the Charter for the New Millennium, again the Government's response was wholly positive. When it was presented to the Prime Minister at a ceremony in 10 Downing Street in July 2000, he stressed the Charter's importance to the world's over 600 million disabled people and said it would,
"form the basis of a global consensus on priorities for at least a decade".
As my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, recalled in her debate on the Charter on 14th July 2000, it was as the architect in 1970 of the world's first wide-ranging legislation on disability—and as the first Minister for Disabled People—that I was invited in 1979 to open the UN General Assembly's debate which led to the International Year of Disabled People. At the same time, RI asked me to oversee the drafting of its Charter for the 1980s for
704
disabled people worldwide, which became the basis for the UN Decade of Disabled People and informed its standard rules on disability.
That was the background to my appointment to chair the World Planning Group that drafted the Charter for the New Millennium. Its membership included Chief Emeka Anyaoku, then Commonwealth Secretary-General; Deng Pufang, who chairs the China Disabled Persons Federation; Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa; Shri D K Manavalan of India; Justin Dart of the US President's Committee on Employment of Disabled People; Anatole Ossadchik, Russia's Minister for Social Affairs; Prince Ra'ad Bin Zeid of Jordan; Professor Stephen Hawking; and Sir Harry Fang of Hong Kong, a former RI president.
George Wilson, a senior officer of RI who chairs Rehab UK, had an important role, not least in promoting the Charter across the world, and Bert Massie was also helpfully involved.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 25th March 2002 (at col. 620W):
"I welcomed Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium in July 2000. In doing so, I said that I believed that it would form the basis of a global consensus on priorities for at least the next decade. This absolutely remains the Government's view".
He was also able to report that at the UN General Assembly in November a resolution calling for an international convention on the rights and dignities of disabled people as envisaged in the Charter for the New Millenium was adopted.
The Government's new legislative initiatives strongly reaffirm their backing both for the Charter and EYDP. Sadly however the long obstruction of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill deprived this country of world leadership in disability rights legislation.
It was in January 1979 that I appointed a committee of inquiry—the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People—to examine the case for making discrimination against disabled people unlawful. It was chaired by Peter—now Sir Peter—Large and, had his report been acted upon when it was published in 1981, we would have been almost a decade ahead of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Instead, the United States acted on the CORAD report long before we did, and there was a 14-year delay before much weaker legislation was enacted here.
Every statute on disability discrimination, all across the world, lineally descends from the CORAD report, and I pay warm tribute again today to Peter Large for performing the task I gave him so admirably. He was also involved in the setting up of Motability, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary, and that too is worthy of attention in this debate.
Motability is a striking example to the world of what can be achieved when Ministers and voluntary agencies act together and in fellowship with industry and commerce to make life better for disabled people. The enterprise began long before the acronyms PFI and PPP were ever thought of but has done more for lasting social improvement than anything since created in their names.
The political climate in which it was set up was starkly unpromising. Treasury control of public spending was at its most stringent and credit never more tightly squeezed. Yet the prerequisites for Motability's success included the creation of a mobility allowance; a doubling of its value in a year; and a £100 million relaxation of the credit squeeze to allow the clearing banks to back the scheme.
Happily there were those, however, in and out of Parliament—and quintessentially, in Jim Callaghan, a Prime Minister—who were determined that it would succeed. Among them too were Denis Healey, then Chancellor of the Exchequer; Joel Barnett, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and Patrick Jenkin, then Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Social Services. The key was the decision to phase out the invalid tricycle and phase in a mobility allowance that could be converted into a car. More than 1.5 million cars were provided in Motability's first 25 years and it was said, not only jocularly, that its vehicle fleet soon grew to rival that of the Chinese army.
As Motability's founding Minister—and founder patron of the enterprise—I honour the memory of the late Lord Arnold Goodman, its first chairman, and the leadership of his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, Gerald Acher, CBE, Sir John Quinton, Noel Muddiman and all their colleagues over the years for their constancy in serving with such humanity those for whom it was conceived. With a team like that we may yet succeed in overtaking the Chinese army.
This year the Government are spending £3.7 billion on outdoor mobility and overwhelmingly it is from this sum that Motability's funding derives. Moreover, in the last year before the mobility allowance was introduced, total spending on the old scheme—with which before 1974 governments of all persuasions were serenely satisfied—was counted in millions, not billions. Indeed, the private car allowance, which nearly twice as many entitled disabled people chose in preference to the trike, cost only £2 million.
The mobility allowance is still unmatched in Europe or anywhere else and, without one, no other country has anything to compare with Motability. There remain problems, of course, but nothing to compare with those of the scheme that the mobility allowance replaced.
Like everyone here, I have had raised with me issues of current concern to disabled people and their organisations. I shall refer briefly to just three. First, notwithstanding the Government's welcome abolition of benefit cuts in the first 52 weeks of hospitalisation, 1 per cent of patients—those most severely disabled—still face financial distress. This was put to me by the Association of Disabled Professionals and I shall be grateful if my noble friend Lady Hollis can arrange for the association to be consulted about the worrying cases raised in its submission.
The second issue is the continuing concern among disabled people that the DRC could be merged in a single equality body. Again, it is severely disabled people who are most concerned, and I hope Ministers will find opportunities soon to discuss this with people such as
706
Sir Peter Large, Kate Nash and Jane Campbell. I urge them also to pay close regard to the DRC's reaction to their consultation exercise and its comment that:
"It would be ironic if, in EYDP of all years, the Government set a direction on equality institutions that in fact diminished the priority accorded to disability".
The third issue is one raised in a letter from one of our colleagues. Acknowledging many "worthwhile improvements in benefits", he adds:
"But handling of the various claims seems unnecessarily confusing. If you are not an expert it is difficult to distinguish where one overlaps another and I am sure it would be a blessing to a great many people if the system could be simplified".
Here too I know that my noble friend will respond as helpfully as she can, since it is to this difficulty that disability organisations often trace the failure of many highly vulnerable people to claim their statutory entitlements.
The European Year's aims and the Charter fir the New Millennium alike seek to substitute hope for despair in the lives of disabled people, empowerment for dependence and social inclusion for segregation. They want from heads of government acts not of compassion but of enlightened self-interest and moral right. Both documents look forward to a world where citizens with disabilities are seen as giving as well as receiving; where their potential is understood and valued; where if years cannot be added to their lives, at least life can be added to their years; and where disabled people have an undoubted right to participate on equal terms with everyone else in the life and work of their communities.
I began with a quote from a child and end with one from Chief Emeka Anyaoku about children. Speaking of his role in the drafting of the Charter, he writes:
"I take pride most of all in the Charter's insistence that disabled children everywhere must now share the rights of all humanity to grow and learn, to work and create, to love and he loved".
Let that be our spur in facing the still all too long unfinished agenda of unmet need.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on choosing this subject and referring not only to the European Year of Disabled People but also to the world-wide Charter for the New Millennium. Some 22 years ago, the International Year of Disabled People took place, sponsored by the United Nations. The noble Lord and I were both involved. I was asked to be chairman for Scotland. During that year, the chairman for England became seriously ill and then died. So I was asked also to take over his main engagements, and was able to do so where they fitted in with my being in London for Parliament. In the following year, 1982, the effects of the international year were assessed. It was estimated that in the United Kingdom more progress in public awareness of disabilities had been achieved in one year than in 10 ordinary years. The noble Lord has described events during that year. I hope that this European year will have similar success.

707
I should again declare a personal interest having been disabled in the Second World War, a bullet going through my middle, among other things. I have been a war pensioner ever since, starting with more than a year in hospital and then spending time in a wheelchair. Further surgery over the years has put me on my feet with calliper and sticks, although of course I get more and more tottery.
The noble Lord mentioned Motability. I think that that has been an excellent scheme. I remember when it was brought in. I supported the private enterprise involved. I myself benefited. Parked outside is one of the projects—a small Motability car specially adapted for me.
In 1981, I drew attention especially to mental disability, including mental handicap and other disorders. Another campaigner—who I am glad to see is here and who no doubt will speak—was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, before he became a Member of this House. I met him during that international year. I think that mentally disabled people have benefited from the resulting improved understanding by the general public prompted by the international year.
I have questions for the Government. First, what action are they planning to take to support initiatives in this field? Such action could be to enable more disabled people to live outside institutions, including hospitals, provided that the facilities they need are available to them and that they have access to helpers where necessary.
I wish all success to this European Year of Disabled People and to those who are organising it.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Morris for securing this debate. He has an outstanding record on a very wide range of disability issues, both as a Minister and as a Back Bencher. Listening to his very moving speech, I was reminded how easy it is to forget those early days when campaigning for disability was a very tough job. He had a marvellous record in those days and has had one ever since. I congratulate him.
The European Year of Disabled People is an important landmark for Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular. It marks the culmination of a decade of resolutions, policy statements, treaty articles and directives—all designed to bring disabled people in out of the cold, defend them from discrimination and provide access to jobs, buildings, education, and transport. A great deal has been achieved, and my noble friend has explained many of the developments. We are moving now into a new era in which people are increasingly setting these issues in the wider context of human rights and full citizenship rather than ad hoc advances. We need to go further along this route because it is a valuable key to a new world for disabled people.
The European Year follows the European Union's welcome decision to make anti-discrimination a clear priority. Its policies on equality of opportunity for
708
disabled people, on a barrier-free Europe for disabled people and in numerous directives on employment and other issues have been strong and farsighted. Now, however, it is up to the member states to implement those policies. There are some 38 million disabled people in Europe—about 15 per cent of the population—and some 25 per cent of people in the central and eastern European countries applying to join are disabled. The need for further advances is obvious as those disabled people are two or three times more likely to be unemployed than the non-disabled, and only half as many disabled as non-disabled are likely to receive higher education. In other words, in Europe as in Britain, the odds are stacked against them.
If this special year is to result in significant progress, we need action as well as increasing awareness. Enduring achievements require a multi-pronged strategy by all countries, not just a few, and they should focus on antidiscrimination measures, removal of barriers, reduction of prejudice and the provision of new rights across the board—employment, housing, transport, education and training.
Government initiatives in the United Kingdom have been very helpful to disabled people, especially the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission—referred to by my noble friend—the improvements to the Disability Discrimination Act, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, and the various pieces of legislation which have provided better opportunities for disabled people. I have praised the Government's efforts so far but my noble friend Lady Hollis would be extremely surprised, not to say shocked, if I did not add the word "but".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I would be appalled.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend says that she would be appalled. The Government have many achievements to their credit such as those I mentioned a moment ago but they are inadequate because they are not comprehensive. I believe that one of the best contributions to the European Year of Disabled People that the Government can make is that when they deliver—I am sure that my noble friend is listening very carefully—their new disability Bill they make it a radical and comprehensive one instead of the piecemeal efforts seen so often in the past.
I should like to offer help to my noble friend Lady Hollis. I always want to be helpful to her. The new government Bill should embrace all the contents of my Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill which we debated in the House in January last year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does my noble friend wish the Government to embrace the clauses that he withdrew as a result of debate in this House, for example, those associated with the Armed Forces?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. I withdrew those

709
clauses as a tactical ploy. The tactic now is to pursue all of them. We can easily outmanoeuvre the Government, especially in this House. When it comes to votes, the Government are in a minority. My noble friend will suffer for the comments she made but I forgive her just this once.
As I said, the new government Bill should embrace all the contents of my Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill which we debated in the House in January last year. The Government will find many necessary provisions there: to include people with HIV in the DDA; to ensure that private clubs come under the remit of the DDA; to give the DRC powers which are not contained in the DDA to act for disabled people under the Human Rights Act; to bring all firms into the DDA; to give employment tribunals power to order reinstatement of employees who have suffered discrimination; to include all transport in the DDA; to forbid public authorities to discriminate against disabled people; to place a duty on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people; to extend the duties in Part 3 of the DDA to landlords in particular; to extend the DDA questionnaire procedure, which applies to employment claims, to Part 3 of the DDA (goods, facilities and services); and to ensure that all discrimination claims under Part 3 of the DDA are commenced in an employment tribunal.
In commending those suggestions to my noble friend I assure her that my Bill is easy to read, easy to follow and, given the political will, easy to implement.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that corpsing in the House of Lords is a first for him and also that it is the first time he has managed to inspire this much mirth on this subject?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is certainly a record which I do not claim with any great pride.
The time is flying due to the diversions of my noble friend Lady Hollis. The Disability Rights Commission—which I think is a marvellous organisation—under Bert Massie and his staff works to ensure that businesses and disabled people have the information they need to meet their obligations and secure their rights under the DDA. The DRC has carried out absolutely splendid work.
I turn finally to the problems associated with mental health. Discrimination and stigma remain all too common for people with mental health illnesses. Our own mental health laws are outdated and the Government's recent botched attempt to draft a mental health Bill rightly met with strong opposition, notably from the Mental Health Alliance, an alliance of disability charities, mental health practitioners and unions. The draft Bill introduces compulsory treatment in the community—a move that the alliance argues will lead to an increase, not a decrease, as the Government suggest, in compulsion.
In addition, under the current Act, to detain a person for compulsory treatment, there must be treatment available to alleviate their condition. However, the draft Bill removes this requirement. While there is a requirement that the treatment is
710
available, there is no requirement for the treatment to be of therapeutic value to the patient. Instead, the treatment can be provided in order to protect others against danger. I am in favour of protecting the public but not at the expense of ensuring that people who are mentally ill have the proper treatment. We should be able to achieve both aims; that is, protection for the public and helping people with mental illness. The proposed measure is ridiculous. The Mental Health Act should be about providing treatment for people's mental health. Public safety is a criminal justice matter and should not be dealt with in a health Bill. The Government are sending out the wrong signals by linking public safety and mental health. That will not protect but stigmatise. ultimately driving people away from seeking the treatment they require.
There is a great deal more to be said on many of the issues we are discussing but I shall conclude now out of courtesy to those who have yet to speak. This Government and especially my noble friend Lady Hollis have a fine record on disability. I readily admit that. I pay tribute to them for the fine work they have done. However, we need to go much further. The Government's new Bill is profoundly important in terms of transforming help for disabled people. If the Government grasp the nettle, we shall be able to do more for disabled people in the future than we have ever done in all previous legislation. I ask my noble friend and the Government to think about making that radical transformation a reality using this European Year of Disabled People as the peg.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as president of Mencap, one of the country's biggest disability organisations, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in drawing attention to this European Year of Disabled People. We should not need special years but until equal citizenship for disabled people is implemented as well as being acknowledged throughout Europe, we shall need special years.
Sadly, people with a learning disability do not always enjoy equal status with other people with disabilities—even within the community of people with disabilities itself, although I think that that is changing, as has already been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who mentioned IYDP. I think that that is when the change began to take place.
As eastern European countries come forward for EU membership, we become even more conscious of the marginalisation of disabled people in general and of people with learning disabilities in particular., and of the challenge to ensure that economic progress narrows rather than widens the gap between disabled and non-disabled people.
Mencap has played a significant part in Europe generally, and in eastern Europe in particular, with Gail Stewardson, Mencap's European Officer, being very much to the fore. The three key themes of this work have been: empowering disabled people and family carers; sharing experience and expertise; and local solutions to local problems using local resources.

711
Those same three themes characterise progress on services for people with a learning disability in this country where we share a surprisingly similar disability history with our continental neighbours.
We have come a long way in the world of learning disability since our Down's Syndrome daughter was born nearly 52 years ago. The first improvements surfaced in 1971 with the White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped and with the implementation of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act, which included children with severe learning disabilities in the education system for the very first time.
It was in 1970 that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, secured through a Private Member's Bill in another place the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. All these groundbreaking achievements—for they were achievements, believe me—came only a year or two after the population of the old "subnormality hospitals" had peaked with the appalling number of over 60,000 men, women and children still virtually incarcerated. Today, about 1,500 people with a learning disability continue to live in English hospitals, but in greatly changed circumstances, while those still alive from that peak figure of 60,000 have become our neighbours in the community.
Then, 30 years on from that first White Paper, came the publication of Valuing People, a milestone in governmental attitudes towards the provision of services for people with a learning disability. The Government deserve great credit for this very different White Paper, which enshrines choice, rights, independence and inclusion—all of which could be summed up as treating people with a learning disability as equal citizens.
The All-Wales strategy for people with a learning disability, published in 1983, attracted great interest across Europe and indeed all round the world. I trust that my Welsh friends will not accuse me of xenophobia if I say that I think the English White Paper has secured the same wide audience. Mencap is a founder member of the erstwhile International League of Societies for People with a Learning Disability, now the highly esteemed Inclusion International. That organisation's European arm in particular is keenly watching progress with implementing Valuing People, and interested parties in the about-to-be new member states are also very much aware of what we seek to do. If I might stray a little further afield, we hope that the White Paper's principles may inform work that we are endeavouring to do with our Arab colleagues in post-war Iraq.
It is imperative therefore that we secure the White Paper's full and successful implementation, and I hope that your Lordships will understand why I want to take the opportunity of offering a few helpful comments and criticisms.
I start by welcoming the first government annual report to Parliament on Valuing People, which was published in April. An accessible White Paper followed by an accessible report on its implementation
712
is quite something. The report highlights the fact that much has been done, and there are certainly areas where we can be satisfied. We have made great progress in the inclusion of people with a learning disability in the planning and implementation processes at all levels. That is particularly true at task force level. However, the picture is more mixed around the country in the local partnership boards. Mencap's recent report highlighted the reality of patchy local development.
Perhaps the concept of putting the aspirations of people with a learning disability at the centre of the planning and implementation process is just too challenging. On the other hand, there is encouragement, as some areas have grasped the nettle, confronted the difficult issues, and are beginning to make it work.
I am concerned, however, that learning disability is not one of the key priorities for government departments, health authorities and trusts, or local authorities. The amount of money available is inadequate. Changes in funding arrangements mean that an overall picture is simply not available, but the experience of shortfalls and cutbacks is in sharp contrast to the picture painted by the Department of Health. That contrast is not, of course, entirely new. Nor is my expression of concern about funding shortfalls, or my feeling that government replies fall a little short of total reassurance.
One of the weaknesses of Valuing People is that very little extra money has been provided to implement it. Without adequate funding, many of the high ideals will continue to be frustrated. A central plank of the White Paper is "person-centred planning" —a horrible phrase, but that is the one used—which is intended to give people real choices in their lives. But choice means more opportunities and support, of better quality, for more people, and there is inevitably more cost. The common experience across Europe has been that better things can be done with the same amount of money, but that better things still can be done with greater amounts of money.
I wish that the Government would lift the curtain of the dark a little and provide us with the actual cost of fully implementing Valuing People. I also return to an old warhorse of mine. Why cannot the Government agree that adequate funds should be earmarked for local councils to implement the learning disability programme fully, without having to reduce services in other areas? I have asked that question many times in relation to various aspects of government funding, and the answer has always been a lemon. Surely by now the lemon has been squeezed dry. If so—if I may mix my drinks and my metaphors—could the Government not offer a little more milk of human kindness instead?
In applauding the Government's concern for outcomes, I also hope that they will offer an effective framework of outcome measures by which to monitor the progress in implementing Valuing People, otherwise its aspirations could be lost. Unless the range of government departments concerned develops and monitors clear targets, aspirations will become

713
expirations. I am sure that the French have an appropriate term to describe big dreams and modest reality.
People with a learning disability are still excluded from many mainstream services including housing, which is one area where there is a need for not only new and imaginative thinking, but simple growth in the services available. I hear regularly from elderly parents who still have sons and daughters with a learning disability living with them, and are desperate to know what will happen when they have gone. The needs of those elderly parents are highlighted in Valuing People, but there is little evidence as yet of plans to help. In Mencap's survey of 150 local authorities last year, we found that only half of the local authorities knew the numbers of people living with older parents aged 70 or over. Worse still, only one in four local authorities has planned alternative housing for them.
Probably the saddest feature of European learning disability history is the treatment of those described as irrecoverable, untreatable and ineducable—people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, and often associated sensory and physical disabilities. Probably the greatest achievement, in some parts of Europe, has been the discovery and implementation of ways to bring the most severely disabled people into the mainstream of services and opportunities. Probably the biggest gap in the White Paper is the relative lack of attention to that group, exacerbated by the tendency to lump it in with a very diverse group of people with extra problems.
Learning disability will not be treated as a priority in England or the rest of Europe, unless European governments and the community as a whole give learning disability the higher importance that it deserves. Having a dream is great, but the dream begins to lose its attractions if it remains forever unfulfilled.
An elderly lady from Surrey and a young woman from Romania with a learning disability provide an abiding image for the European Year of Disabled People. The lady and her late husband invested huge energy and money in Romania and befriended the young woman. The young woman once lived in a Romanian institution, suffered greatly there, and has had difficult times since. Her teeth have been kicked out; she was mugged on the way home from work. However, she travelled to Brussels to address European leaders, and with support moved from being someone put away and abused, to someone listened to and respected. That picture speaks for the new way forward for the new Europe in this year of disabled people.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on obtaining this debate to mark the European Year of Disabled People.
On a personal note, perhaps I should say at the outset that it is something of a culture shock for me to be speaking from the government Back Benches on
714
disability, after 10 years on the Opposition Front Bench berating the Conservative government on the subject. Then I had five years in government when I was not able to speak on the subject in the Chamber. What I said in government is another matter, of course. For a number of those years in opposition, I shared the Front-Bench brief with my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who will reply to the debate. I apologise in advance to her if I lapse into berating mode—old habits die hard.
I wondered how best to frame my contribution, but last week, in the Recess, I was sorting out some papers in my study at home. Purely by chance, I came across a pamphlet produced in 1980. It is entitled New Horizons for the Disabled. It was produced by the Co-operative Party and the author was one right honourable Alfred Morris MA, MP. The foreword is by the right honourable James Callaghan MP. The pamphlet sets out an agenda for action to help disabled people. It might be useful to see how we have fared in the past 23 years in helping disabled people by considering that agenda for action.
The first few words of the pamphlet are as true now as they were then. It states,
"many people still saw the disabled as objects of pity and occasional charity, to be looked after because of their disabilities rather than encouraged to make the most of their abilities".
The pamphlet estimated that there were then 3.5 million disabled people. The figure now is estimated to be nearer 8 million, plus the involvement of those who have a disabled family member. The exact figures are hard to come by, but it has been estimated that one in four of the population is involved, directly or indirectly and in one way or another, with disability.
We have certainly made some progress when we consider, for example, the demands for accessibility that were made in the pamphlet in 1980. They related to access to shops. The pamphlet stated:
"A fully accessible retail store should have:… Easy access from car-parking facilities … No steps leading to the main entrance from the street … A simple entrance arrangement with wide doors that will stay open long enough to allow a person who is slow moving or in a wheelchair to enter safely and comfortably … Aisles wide enough for wheelchair customers, gripping rails in all toilets and locks that can be operated by people with arthritic hands or a weak grasp … Resting points for frail, elderly and disabled people who soon get tired".
That is just as true now as it was then.
When we turn to the vital matter of employment, I cannot do better than to quote from letters written more than 20 years ago to the working party of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on the integration of disabled people. It was stated that:
"Work is so important, not only to provide an income, but also to keep one in circulation in the wider world, still as an integral part of the community.
"The real secret behind a disabled person living a happy and useful life is simply to work.
"So far as employment is concerned, my friends feel that there is more discrimination against the handicapped than against coloured people".

715
In comparison, the most recent figures indicate that 75 per cent of blind and visually impaired people of working age are unemployed. That compares with the national average of about 3 per cent. Yet, more than 20 years ago, research studies showed that disabled people were reliable, loyal, conscientious and productive workers. They had less time off for sickness than non-disabled people. That is just as true today.
There are many obstacles still to overcome. An article in the Guardian of 4th April highlighted the practical problems that are the everyday experience of disabled people and those who care for them. The article was written by a mother who could not book tickets for the National Film Theatre because her 10 year-old daughter was a wheelchair user and therefore a fire hazard. The new trick now is to use health and safety regulations as a way to get around the Disability Discrimination Act. The article also mentioned a man who was refused membership of a gym because his diabetes posed a risk to safety, as was a person with a visual impairment. The same girl who was denied entry to the National Film Theatre was also denied swimming lessons at school, again on grounds of safety. I am glad to say that the National Film Theatre and the swimming pool have altered their policies and the young lady can now attend both. But how many disabled people have a relative who can write an article for the Guardian?
Only today, an excellent report, which your Lordships may have seen, was published by Mencap. It is called Arts for All? and it is about the access to arts facilities in London for disabled people. The introduction to the report says:
"The project and report focuses on the experiences of families on their unannounced visits to popular family attractions in London.
"Some key findings include:… The attitude of some staff and members of the general public makes parents reluctant to plan a family day out … Access arrangements are complicated and inflexible. There is also a lack of seating and rest areas … Public transport presents many difficulties. Some stations do not have any suitable lifts, escalators and waiting areas … Lack of accessible toilets in venues. Most are shared with baby changing facilities and are unsuitable".
I turn to the question of employment. I have over the years visited a number of organisations connected with disability, and have always asked them the same question: "How many disabled people do you employ?". A recent survey by the publication Disability Now gave the figures for 14 major nationally known disability organisations. The percentage of staff who were disabled ranged from 100 per cent to nil. Seven of the 14 organisations employed less than 10 per cent disabled people, and among those seven— they are well-known organisations—out of a total staff of 20,119, the number of disabled employees was 672. The parable of the beam and the mote springs to mind.
We have of course made progress. There was the Disability Discrimination Act, which was passed by the Conservative government. Here I pay full tribute to Mr William Hague, the Minister concerned, who I know overcame much opposition within that government to get that Act on to the statute book. It
716
was not all that we wanted but it was a start. Then we had the Act passed by this Government, which is coming into force with the backing of the Disability Rights Commission.
Those Acts mark real progress in principle and practice but the practical problems of everyday living, of getting to and from work, of the work environment and of going to entertainment are the still the problems that disabled people meet and have to overcome every day of their lives. We have heard that the Government propose to publish in the summer a draft disability Bill. In terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, that Bill appears to be an ideal candidate for scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
My daughter is blind with substantial hearing loss. I asked her for two practical examples of the problems that she faces. The first was the simple problem of reading her personal post. She either has to take it to work and have it read by her reader or a fellow employee, although items in the post could be extremely private, or she must wait until a family member is available. She is the first to admit that there is no easy answer to that problem. Her second point was that if "Mind the gap" can be announced on Tube trains, why cannot the name of the station be announced? Before I could point out that "Mind the gap" is a standard recorded announcement, she said that the only way in which she recognised Victoria was because the voice that says, "Mind the gap" is different. Such announcements are made on certain lines but it would be an enormous help for visually impaired people if that were universal. I used those two practical examples deliberately because in all of the proper rhetoric about the European Year of Disabled People is the real, day-to-day life experience of disabled people, and that should be at the forefront of our concerns.
I began with a quotation from the pamphlet of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I shall conclude with a further quotation, which is an admirable statement of the principles and practice of the Motion and it well stands the test of time. The noble Lord wrote:
"we must seek a society in which there is a genuine respect for the handicapped; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where if years cannot be added to the lives of the very severely handicapped, at least life can be added to their years; where needs come before means; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where the handicapped have a fundamental right to participate in industry and society according to ability; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no [one] has cause to feel ill-at-ease because of his [or her] disability".
4.9 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I join the warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on securing this topical and important debate. I declare an interest as a director of Rehab UK, which is so ably chaired by the dedicated and determined Mr George Wilson, CBE, to whom my noble friend Lord Morris referred earlier.

717
This debate is topical because, as we have been told, this is the European International Year of People with Disabilities. It puts a new focus on the need for governments to ensure that, in the words of Rehabilitation International's charter:
"In the Third Millennium, it must become the goal of all nations to evolve societies that protect the rights of people with disabilities by supporting their full empowerment and inclusion in all aspects of life".
I want to thank the Government for topping up funding of £0.5 million from the European Union by £2 million to make possible in the United Kingdom more projects involving people with disabilities than in any other EU state. I also warmly congratulate the Disability Rights Commission on its central coordinating role in the European Year in the UK, not least in organising with others an international congress of young people with disabilities in Swansea.
I want to confine my comments to rehabilitation and I immediately welcome the two-year pilots in six areas started earlier this month to examine barriers preventing people returning to work after sickness absence and how to overcome them. Some of your Lordships may wonder, as I certainly did, why it took any government so long to think that that was worth considering. But there we go; we have it now. I hope that some of the comments that I shall make about rehabilitation may assist in the organisation of those pilots.
The Select Committee on Health in another place reported in March 2001:
"Head injury is the foremost cause of death and disability in young people … There is a growing population of head-injured people in this country, as improved medical techniques have led to many head-injured people … living into old age, with a normal life expectancy".
It is, in fact, estimated that around 100,000 people a year are affected by problems created by brain injury. Many are because of road accidents; others are because of accidents at home or at work; and yet others result from violent criminal assault.
Most of those involved in head injuries are men aged between 19 and 30. Perhaps what is not properly understood is that about six in every 10 brain-injury victims are capable of being trained to return to paid work. That is what Rehab UK does in its centres around the country. At a cost of about £12,000 to £13,000 for a one-year course, a person with brain injury can be helped to return to work. That is enough in itself in terms of independence, dignity and self-respect; in cold cash terms, it saves around £300,000 per person in benefits over a working life and turns those individuals from tax takers into tax payers.
In his introduction to the booklet, Pathways to Work. Helping People into Employment, Secretary of State Andrew Smith wrote:
"I believe that everyone who wants to work has the right to do so".
That is a very commendable statement and we can all agree with it. But if that is to be achieved and if the Government really mean that, then they need to make the sustained investment to make it a reality.
718
I have to say to my noble friend who is to reply to the debate that it may be the present reality but it was unhelpful and got in the way of Secretary Smith's good words when my noble friend said bluntly on 11th February this year in response to a question about the need for extra funding for Rehab UK's Tyne and Wear centre:
"I regret that my department cannot extend or increase its funding without taking it away from other forms of disability".— [Official Report, 11/2/03; col. 555.]
As I said, that may be the present reality but it gets nowhere near to meeting the present and growing, need. In my view, that is the nub of the problem. There is no single government department with responsibility for ensuring the rehabilitation of those assessed after brain injury as being capable of returning to work—I repeat: no single government department.
Instead of opening a chain of regional assessment and training centres, for which there is need, Rehab UK has had to close its Manchester centre, not because of a lack of demand and not because of any doubt about the outcomes achieved at that and other centres but because of the inability of a disparate group of potential funders to find ways to work together and to do the things that are needed to be done at the same time. Perhaps I may say that it is bad enough when they do because normally that is simply on a one-year basis and, as the calendar changes around the circuit, those employed by Rehab UK must attend again. I believe that that is entirely the wrong way to mark the European International Year of People with Disabilities.
I acknowledge that the funding position over the Tyne and Wear Rehab centre has improved in the short-term and I am grateful for that. But that is not the whole or the proper solution. As I said to your Lordships, Rehab UK now has to knock on the doors of the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and Skills, local authority social services departments, primary healthcare trusts and often other parts of local authority structures.
That will never fulfil Secretary Smith's ambition for the right of everyone who wants to work to be able to do so; it will never get anywhere near to meeting the needs of people with brain injury; and it will never properly deal with a problem to which there is a known solution if government can better get their act together over this important area.
Personally, I do not believe that this is primarily a responsibility for the Department of Health because it is at the point where the hospitals and specialist units have done the best they can with an individual that an assessment can then be made about the potential of that individual to respond to training as a way back into work. It is possible that the Department for Education and Skills is the most appropriate department to deal with the issue. However, frankly I do not care which government department it is. The plea that I make to my noble friend on the Front Bench is that we need to have a single lead department to take responsibility for this important area.

719
In my view, those six in 10 people with brain injuries who are capable of being helped back to work demand and deserve nothing less. They will be denied the help they need and the economy will lose their skills and talents, of which we have need, unless the Government can better organise investment in their rehabilitation. The European International Year of People with Disabilities is a good time to pledge that that will now be done, and I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to make such a pledge when she replies to the debate.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on initiating this important debate and thank him for giving me the opportunity to celebrate the initiatives of John Grooms, a charity with which I have been associated for the past 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, took a very strategic overview as a campaigner. For many years I have been involved as a director of social services and in John Grooms as someone delivering services. Therefore, it is from that point of view that I want to address my remarks today.
There is, indeed, much to celebrate in the steady developments and improvements in the services and care available to enable people with disabilities to live rich and independent lives. Not only has environmental access improved beyond recognition but the greater integration of people with disabling conditions into our communities is totally different from the kind of segregation many suffered even a decade ago. We now have clear standards for care, and I declare an interest as the vice chair of the National Care Standards Commission. Those will ensure that not only residential care but also domiciliary and other services will undergo inspection, which must include consultation and partnership with users of services.
The charity John Grooms, an organisation delivering residential care, day care, domiciliary help and holidays to severely disabled people, is committed to that partnership. Community care is vital and in addition to our residential establishments we have been involved in supporting some exciting initiatives to enable people to live in their own homes. But today I want to focus on what is often seen as the less attractive option of residential care because for many severely handicapped people that is the only alternative they have to being in hospitals or other institutions. That has changed beyond all recognition since I have been on the board of John Grooms.
When I joined the charity, its flagship was a large, village-type, residential home at Edgware, which some noble Lords may remember. It was, indeed, called The Cripplage. It came out of the 19th century and was certainly not fit for purpose in the rapidly-approaching new millennium. The board decided to sell the site and to use the funds to build two state-of-the-art homes in North London that would meet our aspirations to be at the forefront of the kind of care that would give maximum independence to those least able to care for themselves but with the desire to do so.
720
These homes were added to the other establishments that we run including an older but similar establishment in Norwich, John Grooms Court. All these homes have large, self-contained rooms with en suite shower rooms, a kitchen facility and access to communal dining rooms and leisure rooms. Noble Lords would not, I am sure, expect me to be giving a description for no reason. I now want to turn to the difficulties that we are beginning to face.
Most of our residents require constant care and each of our homes is registered with the commission and subject to inspection. In most aspects, the establishments are far above the national minimum standards. We are proud of this and grateful for standards. Whether we will be able to continue this high level of provision is now under threat in a way we could never have anticipated and is almost beyond belief as we celebrate the good work undertaken by so many organisations in the present day.
I turn to my example. The issue concerns registered residential and nursing homes and the matter of disaggregation of council tax in that the council tax legislation provides for "single dwellings" to be treated as a number of dwellings where there are one or more "self-contained" units within, and for each of these to have a separate tax band. The test is a physical one and appears to be that the inside doors have a lock and separate kitchen facilities, something to which we would aspire for all our disabled people, however disabled.
In a recent hearing involving the RNIB, the Inland Revenue agreed to withdraw the disaggregation notice in relation to bed-sit flats on the basis that they were so small as to prevent use without the communal living space. Four larger flats are still the subject of consideration. At a tribunal in Norwich the same arguments were put in relation to John Grooms Court, which provides bed-sits for wheelchair users, who also require considerable personal care. The valuation officer argued that additional space provided and needed for a wheelchair user is irrelevant. The fact that the bed-sits are larger means that they are capable of use as a separate dwelling even though they are clearly not used as that.
I realise that this begins to sound like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The good news is that after considerable deliberation the tribunal agreed and found in our favour. However, that was not before the association had incurred considerable costs, funds raised by the charity which would otherwise have been spent on service users in the establishments. The action has reduced what little reserves we had to plan for new homes like the one we hope to build at Southend. The demand for places in our homes is continuous. We do not run a waiting list as any vacancy is immediately filled. There is certainly a demand.
Had the decision at Norwich tribunal gone against the charity, the additional costs to John Grooms could have been as much as £100,000 per year, which we would have had to pass on to local authorities or have every resident make claims for housing benefit—as for

721
supported living—when most of them would be incapable of doing so themselves or to stop further development in capacity or quality.
But on to Through the Looking-Glass and why in this debate I raise the issue and ask for the Minister's response to the situation when we are considering here the provision of the best facilities to give quality of life to people with severe disabilities. After the tribunal found in our favour, the Inland Revenue appealed against the decision in order to get the High Court to clarify, as stated by the legal adviser,
"what is poorly drafted legislation".
There is, indeed, a lesson for us as we look towards a new Bill in ensuring that any new legislation is clearly written. The effect of this in policy terms is that if we were to provide small rooms with shared facilities we would not have the problem. So, dormitories with no facilities are okay.
We understand that the valuation officer would not want to have flats behind care home facades but we are a registered, inspected care home and have to meet the criteria for personal care otherwise the provision would simply become supported living. I do not believe that the Government would ever have intended that organisations such as John Grooms and the RNIB should be faced with the costs of clarifying legislation or that this situation should have arisen at all. Just getting on with the job of running the services, training and recruiting good staff, continually ensuring quality care and developing provision to meet future needs is enough without this to take away energy and resources.
John Grooms is determined to continue to meet the future with the best provision possible and, with the support of the TSB Foundation, has recently undertaken a review of future needs. With the support of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Disability it will be launched here in Parliament on 3rd June. I had the privilege of chairing the review. The most encouraging finding was that the disabled people we work with are growing in confidence and independence and are demanding better services, equality and inclusion, a good indicator in looking at their status in this European Year of Disabled People.
But planning for provision seems to be inhibited by good statistical information. The inquiry found that both broader planning information and information relating to individuals lacked co-ordination and clarity. I wonder whether the Minister could say something about the future of information collection. I save the remainder of our findings for the launch.
I do not have anything to say about Europe, but I did want to say something in response to the wider debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, we have much in common with our European partners, but in Asia it is very different and standards are very different; starkly so. In 1995 John Grooms association commenced an innovative partnership with the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed in Bangladesh. A nurse educator was seconded to work with CRP at its centre at Savar at what became the leading physical rehabilitation centre in the country. What I see as
722
particularly special about this project, apart from the amazing results on the lives of people who would simply have had no life at all, was the way we worked on a partnership between John Grooms, an Irish funding and support organisation and the staff of the centre in Bangladesh. Alongside complex treatments there were simple solutions such as a ground-level trolley which gives women who are seriously immobilised by paralysis of lower limbs a new way of getting about. Indeed, for some it was whizzing about! Perhaps I may say to the Minister that we could have spent our legal costs on that.
I have concentrated on the residential care aspect of our work as there is a topical and immediate situation to air and address, but I could have spoken about our brain injury unit filled to capacity and turning away referrals much to the stress and distress of the staff, not to mention the possible users and their families. I join the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, in his comments about that work. I could have spoken of the problems of local authority funding for essential day care because of variation in response of boroughs. I could have spoken of very positive programmes such as our school awareness programme or our lifestyle worker but time will not allow.
There have been huge changes in the past decade. I congratulate the Government on the fact that, indeed, much has been accomplished. My experience with John Grooms and other associated charities as well as my work in the National Care Standards Commission, demonstrates that there remains much to be done. I hope that the Government will continue to give support to the voluntary sector in its efforts to ensure that the aspirations that people with disabilities have for their lives can be realised in the European Year of Disabled People.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on securing the debate. I think that most of us anticipated that there would be one but that it was touch and go whether it would be my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester or my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke who would sponsor it. So it is a delight to see both taking part in the debate.
I need to declare an interest: I am chairman of the Housing Corporation. I should like to concentrate on housing and how it affects people with disabilities. Home is a place—whether it is a residential home, an independent house, flat or bungalow—in which people with disabilities spend much more time than perhaps the rest of us. Therefore, that makes housing even more important to the quality of their lives.
Early last year, in preparation for this year's European Year of Disabled People, I set up and chaired a group within the Housing Corporation—although it was headed by the corporation, it involved people from outside the organisation itself and from several government departments—to see what we could do, more than we are doing currently, to address this issue. I am somewhat disappointed that the European Year of

723
Disabled People does not seem to have had the high public profile that other years for other subjects have achieved, certainly within the UK. It seems to be a debate that is almost insular within the field of people with disabilities. That is to be regretted.
In the UK there is a huge unmet demand not only for homes offering full wheelchair access, but also for housing that enables people with non-wheelchair disabilities to enjoy independence. We all want to be independent. The opportunities for many disabled people to be independent and to have their own home are blocked simply because of a lack of provision of adaptations within homes. The provision of a few adaptations would considerably support their lives.
I guess that I should declare another interest: I am president of the College of Occupational Therapy—a wonderful bunch of people who visit people with disabilities in their own homes, in hospital or in residential homes to see what they can do in order to provide access to improve their lives. Here also the demand for adaptations far outstrips the available resources. There is also confusion. If one lives in a local authority home there is no confusion: it is the responsibility of the social services department. But if one lives in a housing association home, the local authority with a restricted budget will often say, "Go back to your housing association, it is its responsibility". So the person becomes involved in the ping-pong between the two bodies.
The Government, through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, recently published a paper that addresses the issue of adaptations. We very much welcome it. In the group that I chair, housing practitioners expressed concern that the paper, while very welcome, would raise demand because the availability of adaptations would be brought to the attention of people who were currently unaware of them. The situation of demand outstripping availability could get worse. We shall want to follow through that issue.
A key area of challenge for the corporation with its working partners—whether housing associations or local authorities—is in the design of new homes. We are looking closely at this area because there are what are called "lifetime- homes. In other words, when one builds a home—whatever kind of home it is—should one not take into account that the people going into that home may have different needs during their lifetime? Would they not prefer to stay there rather than having to move out if they become disabled?
The argument—I must confess that I was in this camp originally—has been that it is too expensive. In fact, with clever design and with clever purchasing and procurement, that argument does not stand up. We are assessing whether we should change how we advise housing associations. We plan to hold a seminar later this year as one of our contributions to the disabled year which will involve not just housing but a broader spectrum—the health department and right across the board.
724
There is much to be done. There is no doubt about that. But we are not starting from scratch. We do not feel depressed or discouraged by the current situation. We have a good start point. Over the years, housing associations have provided for very different groups in our communities—for example, the elderly. They are our biggest client group. We have a group looking at housing for older people. The two groups are working closely together. Sheltered and supported housing are other areas.
We hope that by moving into the new funding regime for supported housing the position will become clearer. We are monitoring it. We do not fund revenue; we fund capital bills. But if housing associations, such as John Grooms, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, do not feel confident about their revenue support in future years, they will not make bids to us for new build. That will start to have a detrimental effect.
For the debate I asked the Housing Corporation's investment department, "Have the bids gone down for supported housing?" The answer was, "Yes, chairman. This past year we have not had as many bids." It is too early to say whether that was in response to the changes in funding. It may well not be. We are monitoring the situation. I know that the Government would not want that to happen because they support strongly what we are trying to do.
However, with increasing numbers of us living longer, wanting to maintain our independence, but perhaps later in life needing support to do that, then the supply of the appropriate kind of housing to meet our needs as our circumstances change is very important.
Another factor that could affect the supply of homes to people who need supported or sheltered housing has not been raised in this debate. And why should it? It is the planning regime—an area not within the Minister's portfolio but as the subject is about housing for people with disabilities it is right that it should be raised. Early this week I met a developer of housing for elderly people. Not all developers are good: they are not all honest and they do not all have integrity. This one is good. He has worked for years in the area. He said to me—quite alarmingly that in the past year 41 per cent of planning applications for housing for the elderly, despite having been recommended by the planning officers, were turned down by councils. That 41 per cent represented a potential loss of 400 units of sheltered accommodation.
That developer provides for the private sector, so no public subsidy was being sought. This was in addition to what the public subsidy would provide. We should bear in mind that if one looks nationally at the figures the majority of people moving into that kind of accommodation would come from within a 10-mile radius of the area. In other words, it was local accommodation for local people. It brought to my mind the words, "Not here, not there, not anywhere", the Nimbyism which can be so damaging. In this case it is very hurtful and harmful. The changes in planning would not want to create a situation where that continued. I accept that the matter is

725
not within the remit of the Minister, but we do not want the unintended consequences of changes in the law to affect the planning regime. At the moment an organisation can put in a second bid and, one would hope, get permission to build. That would not be possible under the proposals. We have a requirement as a quango to advise Ministers; we certainly shall do so.
I said that much is going on and that we are not starting from scratch. We are not. The Government should be congratulated on the support they have given not only through the department to which we account—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—hut other departments, such as that which my noble friend the Minister represents—and, indeed, the Treasury. Who would have thought that the Treasury would be mentioned in a debate such as this in a positive way? But it needs to be congratulated on a scheme to be launched on 9th May in Reading.
Ability Housing Association, which specialises in people with disabilities, working with Reading Borough Council, the Reading National Health Service Primary Care Trust and about 30 other housing associations, will be launching the first UK web-based disability register for housing. It will be a two-way register: individuals will be able to log on with their needs; and housing associations will register the kind of housing that they have. I am delighted to say that the private sector has already registered an interest in joining up. That is very positive and helpful and was funded in full by the Treasury under its Invest To Save grant. That is most welcome.
There are several different schemes up and down the country. We need to know more about them, because we need to bring them to the attention of poor local authorities that are doing nothing. In the spring of 2001, 6.8 million people of working age in the UK had long-term or work-limiting disabilities. We are living longer. That is good, but it means that we must plan better than we have done.
People with disabilities are within and a part of our society. They are not over there as a separate group. However, too often the approach has been to see them as a special group, an adjunct to society, not as being within it. That is the wrong approach.
The English built environment is generally inaccessible to disabled people. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Carter said about accessibility. Recent changes to building regulations are definitely improving the situation. Housing associations have confirmed that to me. The whole issue is straightforward: it is about equality, citizenship and treating our fellow citizens equally, in the way in which we should want to be treated if we were in their position.
In the briefing that I received from various sources, including my party, not one referred to housing. Perhaps that is a statement about housing itself. I am not sure. But housing, I suggest, is critical to the quality of life of people with disabilities. We must recognise the need and what needs to be done.
It is not just a case of saying what we want the Government to do; it is for all public bodies, all organisations, to consider what they can do to
726
contribute to the European Year of Disabled People. I welcome the debate as a contribution to that year and I hope that when the year ends we shall return to the issues and monitor how we are doing as a nation.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, I apologise for rising unexpectedly at this late moment, but I was in bed at home with 'flu when the debate was announced. I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I simply want strongly to make the point how far things have changed since I was first involved in disability.
I was wounded in 1944. Six years later, when, I was in hospital in Oxford, I remembered that I had been sent some modest pension and wrote to the Ministry of Pensions suggesting that it might like to continue it. I received a letter back stating that it had no record that I had had an amputation and asking, if I had, could I prove it? If I could prove that I had had an amputation, could I provide medical evidence that it had occurred more than six months earlier? That is a true story, which tells us how things have changed in recent years.
From where I sit as a disabled war pensioner—moving around quite a lot, I am glad to say—it is impossible not to be impressed by and proud of our country because of how much is now done for the disabled. There are toilets, the way that we get shown into a cinema and people who stop to help us in the street. I was pushing a trolley in a station two weeks ago and a young woman stopped and said: "You can't push that trolley; let me push it for you". That would not have happened a few years ago. The improvement in the treatment of the disabled has been immeasurable and a matter of great pride and confidence to all of us.
Of course, that is not to say that there is not a great deal more that needs to be done. One has only to listen to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Morris, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix—moving speeches by people who are informed about their subject—to realise that we are only at the beginning of what needs to be done. However, I want to emphasise how much has been done much—of it due to the public efforts of those three noble Lords.
Disability is an important, lasting and, in many ways, growing problem. To move away from things such as war injuries—although we cannot move away from them at this moment—I think of my sister, who died at a relatively early age from Alzheimer's. I am bound to say that I think that I am getting it myself now, but leaving that aside, that area demands considerable attention. If one has a relation or is otherwise dealing with Alzheimer's, one realises how difficult it is to get competent, willing treatment.
Having said that, I got my sister into a hospital near Haywards Heath. When she died a year or so later, half the hospital turned up at her funeral. The feelings are still there, but the needs are great.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the last time that we debated disability, I referred to the usual suspects being in order. When I look down the list of speakers, I find that the top three usual suspects were the first three speakers in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has managed to establish himself as a formidable fourth. That group of Peers are people who have maintained in Parliament—not just this House— the on-going struggle to ensure that disability is a subject that is taken seriously here, kept alive and driven through legislation.
Most of the speeches followed one theme: we have come a long way; things are much better than they were; we are improving all the time; the Government have done well; but so they should and there is so much further to go. We have a reluctant snowball here: every time we go slightly further to improve things, we have to take a bigger step.
We must involve more departments. I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is to respond, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned, one department can never really cover the subject. If disability is basically a civil rights matter, as formidable as the noble Baroness is, her current brief does not cover that. It is also to do with health and education services. We must consider the matter in the round. That is one of the major challenges before government.
Most of the work that has been done in the field has been piecemeal and patchy. Everyone has been frightened of taking on new ideas and responsibilities and has been sticking provisions on as and when they felt that they had to. How many of us were waiting here last night to speak on amendments about disability to the Broadcasting Bill that we did not reach? The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was one such noble Lord. That is yet another case of pushing the disability issue into other legislation. How many times have we done that? We do it constantly. We constantly try to find holes. The Government have patched up many holes, but unless they agree to take the issue in the round and to bring all the elements together, we will always be doing that.
I hold the disability portfolio on the Liberal Democrat Benches—they are rather empty at the moment—but I do not want to have to pop up constantly during every Bill to cajole my noble friends and others to support me. I want the Government to seize the opportunity this year—hopeful signs are coming from Whitehall—to introduce a disability Bill that covers most of the principles, at least, and that allows us to have at best secondary legislation and regulations behind us. I conclude that that is the only way to tackle the issue in the long term. No matter how good our intentions, or how friendly we get Ministers to become so that they batter some understanding into civil servants—I feel that at times that has happened—we must try to introduce a basic principle that will make the process easier; otherwise, we will always be tabling that extra amendment and taking on that extra argument.
728
The guiding principle that should be adopted in providing practical help for disabled people was much talked about during the debate on the Communications Bill—what is technically possible should be done. By "technically possible" I mean having the technology and resources to implement changes. We return to the concept of reasonableness—it is in the DDA. If that principle is introduced into legislation and government thinking, we will have a much more coherent approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, one person in four is touched by disability. Anyone who deals with disability groups knows that it is usually families of disabled people who carry forward movement, especially at the start. If such a principle is introduced, those groups will know what they can do and what they can expect. They will not waste time with unreasonable explanations. They will try to make progress.
We must put in place a statement of what we expect a disabled person to do as new disabilities are found. For instance, as someone with the hidden disability of dyslexia, dyspraxia was lumped together with it a few years ago but has now been removed from that category. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, also has experience in the field. It is a different group of disabilities, but it nevertheless exists.
If we continue to expand knowledge about reasons for people's behaviour and why they cannot do certain things, we will not have to write in provisions again and again. I am sure that the Ministers are as bored with the subject as we are. Little will be achieved if we must return to the matter, becoming the group that constantly picks up the same issue. I have heard bar conversations featuring comments such as, "Oh, there is more about disabilities coming in". I have a little information for those fed up hearing about it: I am fed up making the speeches.
It is to be hoped that, if new legislation is enacted, and we work towards a single commission for equality, we can achieve more. At the moment we are merely duplicating effort and wasting it. However, the Government deserve credit for having at least done more than the previous one and for taking major steps. They are mending or blocking some holes—it would be unreasonable to think that they should not do that. But it is not enough merely to carry on in that way; otherwise, we will not achieve our ultimate goal of ensuring that disabled people have as full a place in society as possible and that unemployed or underemployed disabled groups do not have to struggle and go through hoops to gain basic education rights. It is not about that.
Dealing with the problems piecemeal will never provide a final answer. We must take on the whole subject so that in a few years' time we can sit quietly, having dealt with the basic principle, and say that the rest is largely automatic. We will probably get the legislation in place, and it may last a fair amount of time. But, eventually, I am sure, technical matters and further research will prove the need to return to the issue. If we cannot stop the problem once and for all, we might at least take a holiday at that point and say that we have done as much as we can for now.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for giving us, once again, the opportunity to debate the important issue of disabled people. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke—the usual suspects—have all worked tirelessly to improve the lives of the disabled, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly said. I am very proud that my late uncle, the Member for Newbury, worked constructively on the issue with all three.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned learning disabilities. In declaring an interest as the father of an autistic daughter, I am personally very grateful to him for all his work in that field.
The first European Year of Disabled People was officially launched in this country on 20th January. My party fully welcomed the launch. Two days later, the Government's announcement of their intention to publish a draft disability Bill later in the year provided an ideal start. Initiatives designed to increase awareness of the situation in which many disabled people still find themselves, or to highlight good practice in tackling those difficulties, deserve the support of all noble Lords.
The European Commission has set aside 12 million euros to recognise the event. The UK's share is, I understand, just under £50,000 for launch events and £500,000 for project activities. In addition, the Government have contributed £2 million to support the year. It is important that that extra funding and the spotlight on disability is harnessed to produce effective action, as it represents a real opportunity for the Government to improve their so far disappointing record on disabled people's issues.
We, on these Benches, respect and support the dignity of the individual. We recognise that tackling the practical problems faced by people with disabilities must be given the highest priority. Like everyone else, they have aspirations and needs as individuals. It is our job to offer them realistic and practical support based on their rights as full citizens. We want to support them in worthwhile employment wherever possible. We are anxious to find and implement practical solutions so that all people, no matter what their disability, can reach parity and play their full part in society.
The Conservative Party has always been proud to push disability up the public policy agenda. William Hague, as Minister for Disabled People in the previous Conservative government, introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in an otherwise excellent speech I feel that he exaggerated the opposition in my party. I took the trouble to check the point with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. We supported recent legislation establishing the Disability Rights Commission and extending those rights to education. Our commitment to those with disabilities, and our concern for the disability agenda, will remain a focal point of Conservative thinking.
730
When the Labour Party first took office in 1997, all the signs were good. The 1997 manifesto made a commitment to,
"comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people."
The 1998 Green Paper on welfare reform promised new help to people with disabilities and an "unwavering" determination to ensure that disabled people were,
"not left on society's sidelines".
In March 2001, the Government issued a response to the report by the Disability Rights Task Force, From Exclusion to Inclusion, pledging to carry forward work on disability on a number of fronts, including a promise of primary legislation, where applicable.
Despite the promises and kind words, it is widely felt that improvements on the ground have not been as significant as hoped for. In some instances, the circumstances of disabled people have deteriorated. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 represented the Government's first attempt at reforming the welfare system and should have been the vehicle through which it gave substance to its words on disability. Sadly, that was not the case. Many disabled people have still not forgiven the Government for what was described as a pernicious and unfair piece of legislation.
Through the provisions of the Act, incapacity benefit was subjected to means-testing for the first time. That met with widespread opposition. People who have an entitlement to a contributory disability benefit should not have it cut back because they have had the prudence to build up a pot of savings for retirement. Yet the Government chose to save money by targeting some of the most vulnerable members of society. People with disabilities who have savings over £3,000 gradually lose entitlement to means-tested benefits. Those with savings over £8,000 have no entitlement to income support. The rules for pensioners with savings have been changed, but Ministers have refused to do the same for people with disabilities. For the first time, different categories of recipient are being treated differently.
Despite pressure from my party, the Government have refused to budge. At the previous election, we promised to increase the capital rules for people with disabilities to bring them back into line with those for pensioners. That would have benefited 15,000 people with disabilities who already claimed income support and 5,000 people who would have become entitled to the benefit for the first time.
Given that the Government have followed a programme designed to make receiving state support as difficult and as limited as possible, it is not surprising to discover that, under Labour, the numbers of people claiming incapacity benefit has increased by over 100,000 since February 2000. The reason for the increase in claimants is not just the increased number of people joining the caseload but the average length of claims. Around half of all claims last for more than five years. The figures demonstrate an incredible waste of talent, enthusiasm and experience that is being allowed to go unchecked. For some people with disabilities,

731
taking a job will be difficult; for others, it will be impossible. However, for many, employment is what they want and what they need financially.
Despite the Government's lauding of their flagship programme, the New Deal for Disabled People, the gap between unemployment rates for people with disabilities and for the population as a whole, is still far too high. Despite the headline-seeking aspirations of the New Deal, even the Government had doubts about its effectiveness. Initially, Ministers insisted on excluding one in five New Deal applicants to create a control group by which to judge success. That move was heavily condemned by groups that represent people with disabilities. I am thankful that, belatedly, the Government saw sense.
There is a similar problem with the Government's approach to supported employment schemes, which have long provided safe working environments for people with disabilities. Ministers believe that people with disabilities should be moved from supported employment into mainstream work, even if it is not their preferred option. As a result, they are likely to be pushed into less fulfilling and lower skilled work than is available through supported employment. Assimilation can be a progression into isolation, the very thing that we must seek to avoid.
Aids such as artificial limbs, wheelchairs and hearing aids are often the key to independence for a person with a disability: they enable. Yet, in the 21st century, the provision of aids and modern technology is perhaps the worst part of our support for people with disabilities and is well below modern international standards. For those wanting to work or to stay in the labour force, there is often a bureaucratic tangle before anything is provided. As for regular users of aids provided through the National Health Service, there are countless stories of people being unable to get essential spares or replacements without long delays. The equipment, which can make a huge difference to people's quality of life, is often obsolete, is not always in the right place at the right time and is not properly inventoried and tracked. On these Benches, we have recognised that fact, and at the previous election we made the provision of appropriate equipment a cornerstone of our manifesto for people with disabilities. New technologies should be made widely available at the earliest opportunity.
In November last year, the Government published proposals to reform incapacity benefit in the Green Paper, Pathways to Work. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that the proposals combined,
"better and more intensive advice with mandatory work-focused interviews, new opportunities for rehabilitation and new financial incentives to encourage people to move into jobs".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/02; col. 366.]
Phased pilot schemes of the new approach in six areas of Great Britain will start from next autumn. We have called on the Government, for some time, to give extra help to people with disabilities who want to work. If the proposals in the Green Paper really will help, we will support them. I am concerned, however, that we have been here many times before. Four years ago, Labour launched the New Deal for Disabled People
732
and began to means test incapacity benefit. Three years ago, they launched the ONE programme. Two years ago, they announced Jobcentre Plus. Last year, they promised a new Welfare Reform Bill to tackle the rise in incapacity benefit claims. None of those measures has reduced the number of disabled people out of work.
It is vital that the question of adequate flexibility in the interaction between benefits and work is fully addressed. It is also important that the business case for employing a disabled person should be fully made to employers. It is important to use a variety of methods to change attitudes. Furthermore, it is vital that we have a proper and rigorous evaluation of all pilot studies, when they take place.
It is clear that we still have barriers to overcome in ensuring that all disabled people are able to live in dignity and independence and play their full part in society. The European Year of Disabled People will help to highlight the many issues and difficulties that disabled people often face. On these Benches, we have always been proud to carry forward the disability agenda. We will continue to do so unreservedly.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for initiating what has been an interesting and informed debate. I am sure that the House will join me in recording appreciation of the noble Lord's work as an indefatigable champion of the rights of disabled people over many years.
Interestingly, the debate focused primarily on what I would call the more severe end of disability. I had not expected that. There were the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, to which I shall return, about John Grooms and wheelchair users. My noble friend Lord Carter spoke about the difficulties faced by blind and severely visually impaired people. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke about people with substantial learning difficulties. My noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale spoke about brain injuries. The noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, spoke about Alzheimer's. A number of detailed points have been raised, which I shall pursue to the best of my ability and reply in writing to noble Lords. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that many of the issues raised today are not primarily the responsibility of my department but reach into the work of other departments, with which I shall consult.
However, I am sure that noble Lords acknowledge—although possibly not the noble Lord, Lord Astor—how much the Government have done since coming to power to improve the lives of disabled people in this country. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of the distance travelled. We all know that, in general, disabled people have lower incomes and higher costs than those without disabilities—often because they are excluded from work. Therefore, they face reduced employment opportunities and sometimes constrained access to the goods and services, education, travel, insurance, housing and leisure that the rest of us take for

733
granted. To repeat a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it is about mainstreaming their rights as equal citizens.
I turn first to incomes, which, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Astor, have not been discussed today. In the most basic way possible, income empowers people to make choices. Therefore, I do not apologise for starting with cash before turning to civil rights. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the Government have done a great deal of work on this issue, but I wonder whether noble Lords realise how much. Many disabled people are elderly and have benefited from the huge boost in the minimum income guarantee which has risen in line with earnings and not just prices—unlike the inheritance from the previous administration.
In addition, for those people under the age of 60, the disability income guarantee was introduced in April 2001 and is worth nearly £200 per week to a couple. The numbers claiming DLA and AA have risen by one-fifth since 1997. Therefore, last year, nearly £11 billion was paid to 4 million disabled people to help them meet some of the costs of their disabilities, such as heating, laundry, diet and transport.
I apologise if I am being unfair, but, interestingly, I do not think that anyone has mentioned the issue of disabled children. The financial lift of which I am proudest is that which helps disabled children. In 1997, a disabled child drew £21 per week in income support. That figure has now doubled in cash terms to over £41 per week—a rise during the past six years of over 70 per cent in real terms. No one mentioned that. No one is shouting that from the rooftops. In addition, 40,000 families with severely disabled children also benefit from an extra £16.60 per week for each disabled child. As noble Lords know, DLA has been extended to three and four year-olds so that children using, for example, oxygen cylinders who need help with taxis and transportation receive financial support.
Putting this in context, the Government have a good record with children. Families with children—not disabled children—have seen a real increase in their average incomes of around one-fifth since 1997. That is good news. But families with a disabled child have received an increase in average family income of over one-third since 1997. That is even better news, as I am sure the House will agree. I am only sorry that no one thought that worthy of mention tonight.
As many of your Lordships said today, the surest way of helping anyone, including disabled people, to have both a decent income and a full adult life—the life to the years and not just the years to life, to quote the very effective and telling phrase of my noble friend Lord Morris is to enable them to work and to stay in work.
We have introduced a range of employment programmes to help disabled people gain and keep work, ranging from Access to Work, WORKSTEP and New Deal for Disabled People. Through the extension of civil rights, we have brought greater protection against discrimination, better access to employment, goods, services and transport to more
734
than 8.5 million disabled adults. In addition, we are opening up more opportunities in education for young people and children.
Let us look back at some of the major achievements. My noble friend Lord Carter paid tribute to the 1995 Act. I learnt much of what I know about disability as his underling through the battles of 1992 over DWA and the battles in 1995 over the disability Act. I am sure that he would agree with me that although the Act was a milestone, it was, as we argued at the time, a motor car without an effective engine. That is why, after coming to power, we established the Disability Rights Task Force in 1997, paving the way for the Disability Rights Commission—it has just celebrated its third anniversary—which, above all, has made a reality of many of the propositions in the 1995 Act.
In 1999, we made a significant improvement to rights of access to goods, services and facilities, requiring those who provide services to make "reasonable adjustments" where access is impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people. That might include installing a hearing loop system or perhaps allowing a personal assistance dog into areas where animals are not normally allowed.
From October 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable action to tackle the physical barriers which prevent disabled people accessing their services. That will provide a major boost to the participation of disabled people. We are already seeing many enlightened service providers taking action to improve access to their premises.
Through implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, the first stage of which came into force in September last year, we are providing protection for disabled students and pupils against discrimination. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Rix, made reference to the problem of those people particularly with learning disabilities and their need to be mainstreamed. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, knows well, based on the White Paper Valuing People, we are working with the Department of Health on the four key principles of rights, independence, choice and inclusion.
We think that it will take perhaps five years to implement. But with the publication of annual reports, I am confident that your Lordships will keep government up to the mark every year in respect of the degree of progress that we have achieved. We could not be more transparent than producing the annual reports to measure the efficacy of our White Paper.
Through regulations made under Part 5 of the Act, we have ensured that many new road and rail transport vehicles are more accessible to disabled people. In addition, we are implementing Article 13 of the European directive on employment two years earlier than necessary. I shall speak to that in greater detail later.
However, legislation is not enough. Lack of work is one of the most common sources of social exclusion and disabled people are still approximately seven times more likely to be out of work and on benefits than non-disabled people. Strikingly, the degree of severity of

735
disability is no indicator of the degree of likelihood of exclusion from work. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not mind if I refer to his family. His daughter who has what appear to be overwhelming disabilities has none the less held down an important job very successfully. Yet only 11 per cent of those with what many might regard as mild to moderate mental health problems, such as stress or depression, are in work.
There is a real difficulty in seeking how best to overcome mental health issues in particular. I am the first to admit that the Government have not yet got this right. It is one of the biggest areas of difficulty. We are not dealing with a disability that is visually recognisable and therefore a perceived stigma needs to be overcome. Nor are we dealing with a problem of physical access which would allow for a bricks and mortar adjustment. This issue is much more profound and much harder to overcome. This disability spills into an area of almost sickness-like problems and, to some extent, some disabled people with mental health problems interlock with the employers' stigma to exclude them from the labour market when they still have so much more to offer.
In the field of learning disabilities, my noble friend Lord Corbett spoke movingly and powerfully about the problems faced by young men with brain injuries. We are working with the Department of Health to take into account the new national service framework for long-term conditions announced in 2001 by the Secretary of State for Health. We plan to publish the framework next year. I shall ensure that my noble friend's comments are taken into consideration. He was right to point out that some of these issues cut across government departments, but that is the price we must pay if we want to fulfil our wish to see disabled people integrated into the mainstream of every walk of life, whether it be education, transport, housing, the environment or income and financial support. Inevitably, that results in a more fragmented approach than would otherwise be desired.
My noble friend Lady Dean raised the issue of housing. I am glad that she highlighted this matter in her remarks because, as she so rightly pointed out, too often it is an area that is overlooked. My noble friend will know that since October 1999, Part M of the regulations applies to new housing, making such housing accessible to disabled people. My noble friend recognised that we are currently consulting on what should be done about existing property and the propriety of further extending the regulations. We very much welcome the work of her corporation. She will know better than anyone that around 13 per cent of Housing Corporation expenditure is being allocated to housing for people with supported housing needs.
My noble friend also spoke of the position with regard to sheltered housing for the elderly and described how some private development proposals have been rejected, at least initially, by local authorities. I do not know the background, but my experience in local government suggests that, increasingly, rather than opting for new-build
736
sheltered housing, local authorities are seeking to keep disabled and elderly people supported in their own homes. I know of at least one major housing association which has recognised that it faces a problem with regard to its supply of sheltered housing as a result of that policy. People's aspirations have changed from those of 20 years ago when some sheltered housing was being built. I do not know whether that development lies behind some of the problems described by the noble Baroness, but I shall pursue the matter. However, it is the case that, increasingly, the thrust of the services being offered by local authorities is changing. Equally, local authorities are now offering choice-based lettings and we are seeking to expand good practice in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, raised issues associated with conflated council tax as opposed to disaggregated council tax, where it was possible that what lay behind a facade of seemingly separate flats, was in fact a heavily supported, interdependent mutual living arrangement. Given that the case she mentioned may be going to appeal, the noble Baroness will not expect me to comment in detail. However, I was a little puzzled because many years ago I was involved in setting up sheltered and halfway housing in Norwich for people with physical and learning disabilities. Since the introduction of council tax, I know that not only is it possible often to rebate a band down by virtue of that type of accommodation, it is also the case that practically every resident is entitled to a full rebate of their council tax. I wonder exactly how the problems outlined by the noble Baroness have arisen, given my own experience in this area. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to write to me, I shall take the matter further and check to see whether I am missing any tricks here.
Before I turn to the European Year of Disabled People I, too, along with my noble friend Lord Morris, want to highlight the 25th anniversary of Motability. It was founded in 1977 as a partnership between government, charitable and the private sectors to help provide transport for severely disabled people. The scheme has offered choice in meeting transport needs by making available mobility allowances, leasing cars and so forth.
The first Motability car was supplied in 1978. Since then, over 1.5 million cars have been provided to disabled people and their families. Currently, 400,000 people are benefiting from the scheme. I join with my noble friend in praising the vision and insight of its founders.
I turn now to the European Year of Disabled People. The European Commission originally made available almost £550,000 to the UK to promote the European year. We matched that sum with a further £1 million from the Government. Following a comprehensive bidding process, our co-ordinating committee received almost 1,200 bids for funding. Such was the high quality of those bids that the Government made available a further £1 million to help an additional 78 projects, thus aiding 171 in all. Throughout the exercise, our concern was that it should be for disabled people themselves to

737
organise, run and benefit from these schemes. They are the schemes of disabled people rather than for disabled people.
Perhaps I may give a flavour of the different proposals that received support. Schemes that made successful bids include a multi-disabled football league in London; support for disabled parents to help them in their parenting skills in Berkshire; training videos in advocacy for young learning-disabled adults; work with minority communities, including Asian and Latin American families; dementia awareness training in Merseyside; access facilities for countryside paths; work to promote the sexual health of young disabled people in Stockport; and a mental health arts project in Sussex. I could go on. What is most impressive is the vitality, range, and high quality of these locally based skills.
The European year also gives us a great chance to take stock of where we are in terms of civil rights for disabled people, to review what we are doing and to raise awareness. Noble Lords will know how much of this work has been carried out by other departments. We lead on the Disability Discrimination Act. Although the Disability Rights Task Force made 156 recommendations for change, only a minority of them concerned changes to the DDA. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, while others will be dealt with.
Transport Ministers have just completed a consultation exercise looking at how to protect from discrimination disabled people who wish to use buses, trains and aeroplanes. That, too, was a task force recommendation. Ministers in other government departments are pursuing task force recommendations and, as I mentioned earlier, we are bringing forward by two years a key employment directive to ensure that even companies employing only one person will no longer be able to use that as an excuse to discriminate against disabled people. As a result, for the first time 1 million small employers, covering 7 million jobs and employing 600,000 disabled people, will be brought under the protection of the DDA.
At the launch of the European Year of Disabled People in January, the Secretary of State announced our intention to publish a draft disability Bill later this year. As I expected, my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke has pressed me on this. The draft Bill is being published so that it can be looked at by a parliamentary committee which can give us advice if it thinks anything needs to be changed. We have yet to determine the most effective way of setting up that scrutiny. We are also still considering what should be put in the Bill, but we are thinking about other recommendations from the task force. For example, we are looking at extending the DDA definition of disability to more people with HIV and cancer; making sure that public bodies promote the needs of disabled people; ensuring that activities such as the issuing of licences are not counted as services and so are not covered at the moment, and ending the exemption of transport services.
738
We are seeking to extend further in the Bill our manifesto commitment to ensure basic rights and opportunities for disabled people. However, my noble friend Lord Ashley and other noble Lords will know that at this stage I cannot comment in detail on the content of the legislation, except to say that I look forward to the debates that I expect us all to enjoy as and when we secure the necessary parliamentary time.
I hope that the issues I have mentioned—our work to raise the incomes of disabled people; our work to achieve further advances in regard to the Disability Discrimination Act; our work on extending rights of access to goods and services; the initiatives we are sponsoring under the European Year of Disabled People, and the work we have in progress for what I hope will be a further disability Bill—will convince noble Lords that this Government take seriously the European Year of Disabled People not only for one year, but for the generation to come. I hope that, as a result, we shall all enjoy each other's support on these issues.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, again I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. Your Lordships' House always excels in debating the problems and needs of disabled people and that was eloquently set in bold relief in a debate of high quality today.
As my noble friend Lady Hollis made clear, she will be responding to any unresolved questions put to her; and I know that she will do so with all her customary care and concern.
My noble friend is aware of my interest in vocational rehabilitation for people who have suffered traumatic brain injury, an issue which my noble friend Lord Corbett addressed so well in his speech, and I hope that there will be further opportunities soon to debate that and some of the other issues raised in the debate by my noble friend Lord Ashley, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and in one impressive speech after another from all parts of the House since they spoke.
One regret that I have is that we could not address at more length today the pressing need to maximise the prevention of easily preventable disability. Four out of five blind people live in the Third World and four out of five of them are preventably blind— a deeply shaming fact. Yet as that inspired crusader against avoidable disability, the late and widely mourned Sir John Wilson, so clearly demonstrated, the cost of saving people in the Third World from preventable disability has been falling as dramatically as its incidence there has increased.
All too often now one hears grossly complacent talk of the huge advances made by medical science in eliminating one after another of the age-old scourges of mankind. But there is scant room for complacency when HIV spread, the renewed menace of malaria, superbugs and SARS—to name but some of the new scourges—are posing such daunting problems across the world.

739
This is but one reason why everyone who can contribute to reducing the long agenda of unmet need in this policy area must go on doing so. Meanwhile, and thanking again all who have contributed to making this debate so memorably worthwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourism
5.32 p.m.
Lord Pendry Lord Pendry rose to call attention to the place of tourism in the United Kingdom economy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have secured this debate as I believe that the tourism and hospitality industries are not given enough prominence in either this House or another place. I immediately declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Tourism Group and, for five years, shadow Minister for Sport and Tourism.
Those of us who take an interest in tourism are well aware of its importance to the UK economy. Tourism in Britain is not often acknowledged as a huge contributor to the economy—to paraphrase a Select Committee report in another place it is a "sleeping giant"—but tourism is our fifth largest industry. In fact, tourism ranks fifth in every English region in the country and is much higher in Scotland and Wales. Worth £76 billion in 2002, tourism affects the lives, as we know, of every citizen. Over 2 million men and women work in tourism—more than 7 per cent of the working population—and the Treasury receives nearly £8 billion in tax every year from the sector. So it is clear that tourism plays a huge role in our national prosperity.
The past three years have seen a series of crises hit the sector. Foot and mouth and September 11th led to a massive loss to the sector of about £8 billion in 2001. Many businesses collapsed, despite the assistance provided by the Government. The first half of 2002 saw the beginnings of a recovery, but tourism is once again in trouble. I want to draw the attention of the House to the current situation—which is affected by the consumer-led economic slowdown and the situation in Iraq—and what should be done about it.
The British Chamber of Commerce quarterly economic survey showed a significant decline across the whole economy, particularly among small businesses—tourism is of course disproportionately made up of small businesses, more than 125,000 of them, from cafes to B&Bs and small attractions—and all this in the context of a slowdown in UK consumer expenditure and the Chancellor's lower economic growth estimate for this year, down to between 2 and 2.5 per cent.
This bad news has been reinforced by a sharp loss of confidence among tourism businesses. Surveys have shown that in the first quarter of 2002, 66 per cent of businesses were "more optimistic" about the future for
740
the sector against only 5 per cent which were "less optimistic". By the last quarter, only 28 per cent were "more optimistic" and 44 per cent were "less optimistic". There are also some worrying signs of a decline in employment levels.
The build-up to the war in Iraq has of course been a major concern, affecting the willingness of people to travel generally and, in particular, to countries involved in the conflict. Together with the outbreak of the SARS virus and the advent of the ever-present global threat of terrorism we are seeing a decline in the willingness of people to travel across the world, which mitigates against growing inbound tourism—a vital contributor to wealth and jobs.
The latest visitor numbers for 2003 are robust for international visitors from Europe but potential travellers from long-haul markets were more subdued by the approach of war and visitor numbers are down. It is visitors from the US and other long-haul destinations who spend the most when they come here.
For UK residents holidaying within Britain, the fragility of consumer confidence has also seen a deterioration in tourism. The number of trips and overnight stays taken in England were up by only 2 per cent on 2001, the "low tide" year of foot and mouth and September 11th.
After the events of 2001, it was clear that the Government should review the public structures in place to support the tourism industry. Last year the Treasury contributed £20 million towards the extremely successful "Only in Britain, Only in 2002" campaign in key overseas markets. This was matched by £20 million from the industry. Longer term, the Government decided to merge the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council into VisitBritain, a single lead national agency for tourism, which now has a domestic marketing responsibility for England. Campaigns within the UK, Europe and other key overseas markets are already in the pipeline.
The Government's moves are admirable. In Dr Kim Howells tourism has a real champion, as was his predecessor Janet Anderson, but we shall have to wait to see the long-term success in the future as the structures bed down. But the short-term situation caused by the Iraqi situation and a drop in consumer confidence demands action now. I am confident that the Government are monitoring the situation and are considering what assistance they can give to struggling tourism businesses. I look forward to hearing from the Government Front Bench what is the Government's current view.
I believe that there is a need to consider resurrecting the Government's policy towards PAYE and VAT holidays for tourism businesses. Flexibility in the payment of business rates, tax and national insurance contributions proved a lifeline during the foot and mouth outbreak. It could prevent the need to lay-off staff and thereby save many businesses at this tough time. Another taxation measure could be to make trips to Britain instantly cheaper by reducing or suspending air passenger duty for a specified length of time.
Secondly, DCMS Ministers should consult with the Treasury over whether to put extra one-off resources from the reserves behind another large campaign this year along the lines of "Only in Britain, Only in 2002", together with industry match-funding.
Thirdly, the British Tourist Authority has faced a standstill budget for many years. Costs and wages have risen in line with inflation but not its grant-in-aid. Even worse, the budget for the English Tourism Council has been in severe decline. Both bodies performed successfully against their briefs. Now that the Government have merged them into VisitBritain it is surely time to update the grant-in-aid for the long term and correct this shortfall.
We all know that money alone does not necessarily deliver the right results without the necessary reforms, but the Government have now made the necessary reforms and we should see the investment that goes hand-in-hand with those reforms to achieve the results the country needs.
While appreciating the recent structure changes, marketing on its own is not enough. We need to ensure the industry has enough people with the right skills to deliver a quality product. We need better co-ordination between the various agencies and to establish a properly funded sector skills council for tourism, hospitality and leisure.
I believe the Labour Party has a good tourism record. After all, it was Labour that introduced the original Development of Tourism Act 1969, creating our national tourist boards. I was proud, as shadow Minister for Tourism, to draft Labour's first ever policy on tourism and hospitality, Breaking New Ground, before the 1997 election. Surely it is now time to revisit the 1969 Act. Devolution to Scotland and Wales and further tourism responsibilities moving to the English regional development agencies and possibly regional assemblies will mean that the realities of devolution, the existence of VisitBritain and the formation of an England marketing advisory board within VisitBritain are not reflected currently in legislation. The Government have pledged to update the legislation, parliamentary time permitting. My argument is that tourism should be high on the government agenda and the time should be found now. If the Government have belief in their reforms, they should put them on a statutory footing.
Our heritage, coastline, countryside and cities already attract much tourism activity but we should enable innovative local changes so that tourism links in with local community needs as well as those of the visitor. In my own area, the traditional fell-walking activities and Great Parks at the foot of the Pennines are supplemented by events such as the Tameside brass band festival, which includes the route of the revamped, cleaned, regenerated canalside in Stalybridge. As the local MP at the time, I was proud to play a part in bringing the local authority and the Millennium Commission together to provide the necessary funding for that development. As a result of the canal being restored, the inward investment into Stalybridge is to the tune of some £80 million. At the end of the
742
Stalybridge town centre project, it is estimated that that will double within five years to approximately £160 million.
Synergies between tourism and the fields of sport, arts and culture surely make up a major key to success. I am on record in your Lordships' House encouraging the Government to back the Olympic bid for London for 2012, as the potential rewards for the whole economy are huge and the benefits will spread across the country. I look towards Barcelona and Sydney as shining examples of what could be achieved here.
The Government's introduction of free entry to national museums and galleries is a fundamental step towards improving access, although we should look at steps to assist other independent museums, galleries and attractions, especially those in the regions. Could the Government consider extending the VAT recovery scheme to all museums and galleries? Could the National Lottery Commission be encouraged to target funding towards tourism-related projects? I look forward to hearing the Government's view on that.
I now wish to turn to the need for government support for our seaside resorts. Speaking as one who was brought up in the seaside resorts of Broadstairs and Ramsgate, I have a certain affinity with those who argue the case for the restoration of our resorts. I would like the Minister to promise to convey to the Secretary of State the need to read a report about to be published by Sheffield Hallam University which smashes many of the myths surrounding the state of many of our resorts.
For instance, the study examined 43 principal resorts. Combined, these resorts have an adult population of working age of 2.9 million, which compares with a figure of 3.2 million for the whole of Wales. Between 1917 and 2001, the number of people employed within these resorts actually increased by some 217,000.
So where does this leave the traditional seaside resort? Well, it still leaves them with many difficult social and economic issues to face, often of a similar nature to those experienced in inner-city areas. On the positive side, it leaves them with a new understanding that tourism is not the root cause of their difficulty, but actually a major part of the potential solution. It leaves the Government with a better reason and a much stronger justification for their continued keen interest in seaside resort tourism. It also gives much greater incentive to encourage RDAs and other key bodies to invest in resorts' general infrastructure and now, critically, directly into tourism-related projects.
Previously, it has been very difficult to justify an enthusiasm for resort tourism when the perceived wisdom suggested that it was a failing industry. If, as I understand to be the case, the Sheffield Hallam report shows clear evidence that resort tourism is alive and well and capable of more growth, it should be much easier to identify specific methods of tackling the social and economic problems, while in parallel working to stimulate more tourism growth to improve the economy for the benefit of all residents and visitors alike.
Britain has some of the greatest tourism assets in the world. Through regeneration, an improved transport infrastructure, and working in partnership across a range of fields, we can ensure that UK residents visit and enjoy more of their own country, and that international visitors want to return. Only when government can draw together industry, regional agencies and local authorities can we ensure that Britain gets its fair share of the economic benefits of a successful, sustainable tourism sector that can compete with the rest of the world. I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, first I must declare my interest and involvement in tourism. Since I made my first speech on tourism some 50 years ago, it is more or less a question of confirming it.
The whole House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for raising this important subject this afternoon. Before he was elevated to this House, he was very active in another place and has always been a great friend and supporter of tourism.
What is rather depressing in re-reading these old debates over the years is finding the same old problems being brought to the attention of successive governments by speakers from all parties in the House. It is very easy for us to say, "We told you so", as, over the years, there has been a complete failure by successive governments to invest in tourism. Instead, they have—mistakenly, I think—concentrated on altering and interfering with structures. For instance, as far as England is concerned, first we had the English Tourist Board, with its relevant powers, then we had the English Tourism Council, with no powers, and now we have another body called VisitBritain, which apparently has some resources to market England. What was wrong in recent years was the presumption, which was quite wrong, that the regions would together be able to market England competently, even though they are all in competition with each other, leading to a fragmentation of efforts.
It took an apparently unrelated crisis, foot and mouth disease, to reveal the true value of tourism to Britain and the inability of the then tourist agencies to react positively as they had neither the staff, the experience nor the resources to carry out the necessary marketing, so money had to be rushed from the Treasury for these purposes.
The benefits of tourism are felt at all levels of the economy. Tourism is worth four times as much as agriculture and sustains four times as many jobs. It generates more than 15 times as much tax to the Exchequer, yet successive governments' recognition of tourism has been limited and very short lived.
While the creation of the new marketing body for England is generally welcomed, the additional funds made available of £10 million over three years are just not enough. The RDAs are indeed providing some additional funds at the regional level, but at the same time, resources to the centre have been cut, and
744
England no longer has a fully competent national tourism body. Successive Select Committees have identified governments' substantial under-investment in tourism.
Now we are in a period when the financial outlook for Britain is worsening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced all his expectations. Authoritative and independent analysis expects that the position could become very much worse in the future. Britain needs to make use of every opportunity to invest more and help boost the economy. Tourism is one of the few industries capable of making a massive contribution, but for the past decade we have been losing out, with the net positive balance of payment on the tourism account declining in 2002 to a negative balance of £15 billion. The situation could even get worse, but that is not inevitable; the deterioration could be reversed.
The BTA has proved the value of investing in the ability and experience of attracting tourists to Britain against the ever-strengthening competition of other countries. For every £1 that the BTA is able to spend promoting Britain, an additional return of £28 is earned. How can that opportunity be repeatedly ignored?
After foot and mouth disease and the impact of September 11th, the Government responded with additional funding. Now, with the Iraq war and SARS impacting on our tourist industry, typically it has been announced that no additional funding from Government is planned. Tourism has always been vulnerable to major disruptions, and the cost to our industry and to jobs can be enormous. We need an early commitment from the Government to be prepared to provide a long-term investment to help Britain to improve the tourism infrastructure and win its share of demand against ever-growing competition from other nations. More than ever before, we cannot afford to neglect our tourism potential. We do so at our peril.
5.51 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when I joined this House seven years ago, one of the earliest debates in which I participated was on tourism. In that debate, I also followed the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, with some sense of awe, since his name is associated with one of our most successful tourist enterprises. Indeed, I pointed out at that time that he and I occupy almost diametric opposites of the tourist experience in that he was one of the pioneers of saving our stately homes heritage through tourism. My experience was of selling coffee on top of Blackpool Tower. The highlight of that experience was an article in the local newspaper with the headline "Tower Top Tommy"— one of the more favourable pieces ever written about me.
My Blackpool background meant that I never treated tourism as a second-rate industry. I was brought up with the knowledge and appreciation of the jobs and the wealth that tourism created. It also left me with the conviction that there is a difference between service and servility. Being in service industries is in no way demeaning; indeed, one of the great satisfactions, as

745
any good chef will say, is being able to provide good high-quality service to a satisfied customer. That is one of the things we need to encourage. We must get rid of for ever the concept of "rip-off Britain". It will take the efforts of everyone involved to ensure that what people get when they come to Britain for their holidays is of the highest value and quality.
The problem is that tourism has been something of a Whitehall orphan. It has been bounced around various Whitehall departments and has always been a subsection of a junior Minister's responsibility. Although the approval expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, is, I am sure, appreciated, I remain unsure whether Kim Howells wants to be tourist Minister or art critic. That is part of the difficulty.
When one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, one is always tempted to say that he was the best tourist Minister we never had. Certainly, the work he did in opposition on tourism and hospitality was a document that cut across party dogmas in giving a blueprint and a way forward for the tourist industry. In his opening remarks, he rightly highlighted the trials and tribulations that the tourist industry has gone through in the past few years. It is not treating the situation frivolously to suggest that it is almost like watching "The Perils of Pauline" in that there has been 9/11, foot and mouth, various acts of international terrorism and recent wars. The industry has been buffeted, buffeted and buffeted again. Now there is the possibility of an economic slowdown influencing it further.
But there is an opportunity in this challenge. We may see, perhaps only for a short time, a change in tourist patterns. The exotic holidays, which were becoming increasingly attractive to British tourists, may seem less so in a rather more dangerous world. This represents a real opportunity for the British tourism industry to sell its benefits to the British people. The more exotic holidays may also be less tempting to some of the foreign tourist markets, and we may also attract them. Most importantly, the British tourist industry and the relevant agencies should use this year to attract British tourists back to holidaying in Britain.
I have done some pioneering myself. I have a young family: a 7 year-old, a 9 year-old and a 12 year-old. Without being too pious, I decided some time ago that part of their education should be to discover their own country as well as having the opportunity for foreign travel. In recent times we have been to Torquay, Weymouth, the Gower, Blackpool and the Lakes. Going to Blackpool was of course an essential part of their cultural development. They enjoyed the Tower Circus and the Pleasure Beach, as I did 40 years ago.
In those visits, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said about the Sheffield Hallam study, I found that the state of British tourism—especially of our seaside resorts—is nowhere near as decrepit as some of the publicity suggests. There are really good family holidays, with good entertainment, at our leading resorts. To visit the Gower or the Lakes, or to do, as we did, and take the road from the Lakes to Leeds
746
through the Yorkshire Dales National Park to join the M1 gives one a breathtaking realisation of our national heritage.
I pay tribute to the management of our national parks. I was extremely impressed by the signage and facilities, which make a visit to a national park such an added pleasure for a townie like me. One can judge which directions to take. There is plenty of help available; there are many facilities. So that side of tourism is there and waiting for the British people. However, leadership is required if people are to take advantage of the opportunities. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, indicated, funding will also be necessary. We need a sense of urgency if we are to capture that opportunity.
Not only the holiday areas can benefit; opportunities exist also for the larger cities. The message is coming home to cities that tourism is important, and they are responding. Just over 10 years ago, I did a study for the Mersey Enterprise Board about the type of things that attracted people to Merseyside. It was amazing to learn what a strong selling point Merseyside's artistic, cultural and sporting assets were in attracting tourists. As anyone who has gone to Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham will know, the combination of cultural and other assets makes a city visit extremely worthwhile. The competition for designation as City of Culture has demonstrated how one asset can be balanced against another and the sense of community that is delivered. As for sports tourism, the Manchester Commonwealth Games have left a lasting legacy which will boost that city's tourism. I therefore strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said about going with vigour for the Olympics.
I realise that tourism has some severe problems. However, from my recent visits to tourist areas around England and Wales I know what those areas have to offer and the quality of which British tourism is capable. That potential really does deserve a response from government and government agencies. During these times of international uncertainty, we should grasp that potential gap in the market. Having attracted Britons back to Britain this year, the tourist industry at every level should also ensure that, because of the quality of what they experienced, people are determined to come back again and again.
6.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I, too, wish to address that issue of quality. I welcome this debate on the place of tourism in the British economy and am grateful for the opportunity. I should, however, declare an interest as chairman of the Cathedrals and Churches division of the Church of England.
Noble Lords will be aware that, in the beginning, mass tourism and religion were partners. Thomas Cook was, of course, a notable Baptist temperance campaigner. The very first package tour that he organised was an 11-mile rail journey from Leicester to attend a sober rally in Loughborough. An inclusive price was charged for both food and transport, and so mass package tourism was born.

747
The partnership between religion and tourism is not only an historic theme; it is a very contemporary theme as well. Religious buildings of all kinds in our country are not only magnets which draw tourists and their money to major heritage sites such as neighbouring Westminster Abbey or York Minster; they also divert tourists into the depth of the countryside, perhaps with Mr Simon Jenkins' guide to the Thousand Best Churches in hand. Religious buildings can even draw people to very unfashionable parts indeed. There is a trickle of tourists to the church of St John's Hoxton—which, with English Heritage, we have recently restored, including a marvellous painted and rather genteel Church of England Apocalypse overhead. It has attracted quite a stream of tourists to Hoxton, which is not the usual sort of venue that comes to mind.
So religious buildings such as the spectacular Hindu temple in Neasden attract millions of visits each year. I wonder how many tourists would miss the pleasures of visiting Wells, for example, if the cathedral there did not act as a magnet. As we heard, such attractions bring great economic advantages to the areas in which they are set. They also contribute powerfully, and incidentally, to a deeper sense of local identity, not least for the newer British communities.
However, that comes at a cost to those responsible for the upkeep of tourist magnets and attractions. The steep rise in visitor numbers which we have experienced in the past 30 years has also seen an increase, quite rightly, in the legislation covering the care of visitors, especially the care of children and—remembering the previous debate—the care of those afflicted by disabilities, and the accessibility of attractions to them. At the same time, stricter regulation aimed at conserving our tourist attractions has resulted in an increase in the cost of maintaining them.
Of the million or so visitors who come to Canterbury each year, many are French or German. They assume, of course, that the Government bear the cost of maintaining such an important and attractive part of the heritage of the whole community and not just one faith community. Such visitors are often astonished to discover that what they take for granted in their own country is not true in Britain, where thousands of volunteers—and we are not whingeing about this; we are proud of it—connected to all the faith communities of the country do the work and raise the money that is a charge on public funds in nearly every other European country.
Canterbury Cathedral, for example, has never received an English Heritage grant. However, if you have a million visitors a year, the building needs to be presented and preserved—we have heard the accent on quality and a memorable experience—in a way that offers the tourist a welcome, an experience and, if required, an education. Even visitors from Great Britain—currently increasing in numbers for the reasons we have heard—assume that the £3.50 charge to visitors at Canterbury is just netting a little money on the side for the cathedral over and above what it receives from a generous public purse. That is how
748
they perceive it. Such charges are in consequence often resented and comparisons are drawn with the free entry policy at museums and galleries.
Yet—and this is the crucial point for this debate—the money from visitors at such a place is not used to keep the services going or even to keep the building standing. In Canterbury's case, it is used chiefly to provide the facilities to cope with the demands of mass tourism, to care for the visitors and keep them secure and to make good the wear and tear of a million pairs of feet.
In a country such as ours of voluntary religious communities, it is the business of each faith community to finance the religious purposes of its shrines. In the case of the Church of England cathedrals, their primary purpose is defined by legislation as being centres of worship and mission. No one is asking for any kind of state subsidy for such activities. However, it is important to all those who care for quality in our provision for the tourists at home and abroad, and extremely important for all those involved in tourism—we have heard again and again the statistics which illustrate the sector's importance to the economy and the employment it provides—that heritage sites should be properly resourced to offer a memorable experience to very numerous and very diverse visitors.
English Heritage has a modest annual budget of £2 million for its Cathedral Repairs Grants Scheme. It seems to me that the larger sums available to promote tourism and sustain attractions must be viewed with a strong assumption that there must be an argument for considering the eligibility of clearly defined aspects of visitor welcome and presentation. Those aspects of spiritual heritage attractions should be considered on a similar footing to some museums and galleries as beneficiaries of those programmes.
So, while welcoming the debate, I hope very much that it can help us to see certain aspects of the challenge of maintaining such a significant part of our communities' inheritance in a new and possibly constructive way.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pendry on initiating the debate. I congratulate him especially on calling attention to the importance of tourism to the United Kingdom economy.
Tourism certainly makes an important contribution to the United Kingdom economy. It fosters growth in the building industry, the motor industry and the aircraft industry. Many industries get a spin-off from tourism. But putting that on one side, as has been said, our tourist industry was worth over £70 billion in 2002. However, the figure will be less this year. Some 2.1 million people are directly employed in tourism and 127,000 businesses are involved in it, 80 per cent of which have an income not exceeding a quarter of a million pounds a year. The latter point is probably one reason that tourism and the economy do not necessarily go hand in hand in the public's perception.

749
Britain is good at tourism. We have the fifth largest tourist industry in the world. Yet it does not have the high profile that many of our other industries have. Perhaps the onset of foot and mouth started to make the public realise the impact that such events have on the lives of people in rural communities who are involved in tourism. Certainly, those who were not convinced that the foot and mouth epidemic had a negative impact on the tourist industry must have been convinced that the tragic events of 11th September had a negative impact. Then the war with Iraq broke out and now there is the problem of SARS. I cannot think of any other industry that has suffered four such consecutive crises. The tourist industry must be reeling and wondering what is coming next.
The tourist industry is going through a tough period. We can see that in this great capital city of ours. Last night I went to a West End theatre that was half full. The other day I got into a taxi and the driver told me that I was the first fare he had had for an hour. I said that I thought my fare would be only about £3.50 but the driver said that it was better than nothing. Those involved in the tourist industry are under economic pressure. Hotel occupancy rates are well down.
The campaign to encourage people to visit Britain is certainly very important. A fall of 15 per cent in visitor numbers is anticipated compared with last year. ABTA says that bookings are down by 16 per cent. Although ABTA tour operators deal mainly with outbound tourism, they employ 133,000 people here in Britain. Certainly, the decline that they face may well result in job losses in a sector where I gather the average net profit is just over 1 per cent. So they do not have much of a margin to play with.
Some 2 million people work in the tourist industry and, as I said, last year the tourist industry was worth over £70 billion. I compare that sector with the industrial sector. Yesterday headlines in the press announced the 1,100 redundancies—that is an approximate figure—at Corus. The media gave that matter huge coverage. The tourism industry is four times the size of the agriculture and farming sector in the UK with four times the number of employees. About a third of a million people work in the farming industry. Yet at no time during the foot and mouth crisis did the media give much coverage to the impact of the crisis on the tourist industry and on people's jobs in that industry. As my noble friend Lord Pendry said, the VAT and pay-as-you-earn holiday that was granted at that time was a lifeline. As he said, perhaps we should consider doing that again.
It is generally recognised that the tourist industry is having a tough time. It is one of our new industries. It has grown and has to some extent taken the place of our former great manufacturing industries in terms of the number of people it employs. I refer in that regard to the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry and the coal mining industry. Tourism is an industry with a large economic involvement in our communities. Although it appears glamorous, it is a terribly important part of our economy.
750
The industry will bounce back; I do not think that there is any doubt about that. After the Gulf War the industry recovered very quickly. It was starting to make a strong recovery after the foot and mouth epidemic when the events of September 11th occurred. It seems that each time the industry recovers, something else has come along in the past two years to knock it back.
The industry needs nurturing. I do not think that it is whingeing or pleading poverty. However, it is an important sector of the UK economy. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was right to refer to ABTA. At the moment 10 per cent of its work is within the domestic holiday market. Some 61 per cent of its members have said that they will invest more in the domestic holiday market. In Germany, for example, domestic holidays account for half of travel agents' business. Their overseas business probably mainly involves holidays in Spain.
Should an industry that is so important to our economy have its own Minister? My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham will say that tourism has its own Minister, Kim Howells. The industry considers that he is a very good Minister. However, when the tourist industry—which employs 2 million people—is in crisis, it is not helpful for Kim Howells to devote day after day to the Ofcom Bill. As I say, Kim Howells is a very good Minister but this very important industry would gain a higher priority in his portfolio if he was able to devote more time to it.
There is a strong case for bringing the tourist industry under the remit of the DTI. I should be surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham agree with that point. However, one could argue that tourism is an economic rather than a heritage matter. That point should be considered.
I hope that the industry will enjoy a period of stability to enable it to recover. My noble friend Lord Pendry mentioned the sum of £20 million that was allocated last year to promote the tourist industry. That was very helpful indeed. Last year the Prime Minister appeared in an advertisement to promote Britain. After the events in Iraq he probably has Beckham cult status in the United States! I hope that the Prime Minister will take a lead in promoting this country in advertising. We need to get back international visitors.
The infrastructure of the industry is also important. I declare an interest in that I chair the Freedom to Fly Coalition. That body tries to ensure that we have the aviation and infrastructure capacity to meet customer needs in the UK over the next 30 years. Two thirds of our visitors arrive by air. On the Continent air travel is recognised as an important part of the economy. Amsterdam Airport has expanded and has the potential to have six runways, although it does not have six at the moment. Charles de Gaulle Airport has expanded its capacity, as has Frankfurt Airport. Heathrow is no longer the No. 1 airport in Europe. It serves fewer destinations now than some of our European competitors. Our competitors are investing

751
in new infrastructure as they want to attract this important industry. Our rail infrastructure is also very important in this regard.
Like anything else, the industry is terribly competitive. It is also price-sensitive. It has recently carried out some work comparing itself with Europe on taxation. One example that it took was an American family of four coming to Britain. Tax accounted in the UK for 18 per cent of their spend, whereas in Europe the average was 12 per cent. One could say that, in the UK, the tax taken from the spend was 50 per cent more than the average taken in Europe. That could be looked at, certainly so that no more tax is put on an already heavily burdened industry.
The debate is important to our economy and to jobs. At the moment the industry is seriously challenged, but it will come back. If we look at all the statistics, we can see that it will be buoyant. We have to do what we can to nurse it along, to make sure that it is ready to face its challenges and to take the opportunities raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in trying to develop the domestic holiday industry.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I listened with interest and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, this afternoon, as I did over the years on many afternoons and evenings and, once or twice, during the now-vanished all-night sittings in those more heroic days when men were men down the corridor in another place and before we all became politically correct. Alas, I cannot wholeheartedly agree with his optimism of "A little more tourism, with a little more government help and intervention, will cure most economic ills", even though I greatly welcome the chance that he has given us in an excellent speech to debate the issues. I wish to concentrate on tourism in rural areas.
I do not believe—I am so far the only dissenting voice—that tourism is some universal good. Sometimes at worst it encourages the "theme-parking" of Britain, and even the de facto destruction of that which tourists travel so far to go and see. Most of us enjoy going to look at something. However, sometimes the urge to become a tourist seems to be found in our growing national condition of rootlessness—the sense that the only way to enjoy the earth and the United Kingdom truly is to travel to places where one is not.
Much of that rootlessness and dissatisfaction with where we are is because of the prior destruction of so many of our towns and cities, and their social, economic and built fabric, in post-war years. I applaud very much the thoughtful approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, and other noble Lords who wish to make urban life more desirable again—to make people wish to root themselves and recreate more at home, as people lucky enough to live in the country often do.
After all, visitors to homes and houses, whether in town and city or the country, are often struck not only by the beauty of the architecture or the interior, but by
752
the lingering sense to be found inside some such places of a calm that radiates from the making of a home by families and people who stayed put in the town and the countryside. One side of the coin of the generation of tourism is the fact that that cannot always easily be found by those who live in crowded urban conditions whom we have not served well since 1945.
I intend to concentrate on rural areas, however, where local people do not think all the time that tourism is some blessing. Tourism can bring pollution, traffic congestion, overcrowding, and sometimes downright environmental damage. The income generated by tourists all too often does not stay in the local area but is siphoned off to other areas, so local people are not benefited.
The countryside and those interested in rural tourism do not need more quangos, statist intervention, policies, campaigns, subsidies, or the invaluable ministerial time of Dr Kim Howells. I listened with great interest to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, that the responsibility might be moved to the Department of Trade and Industry with its seven Ministers; that department is itself a sort of job-creation industry for Ministers. One of those Ministers could take on the responsibility if she feels that ministerial responsibility is not being exercised properly.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, nothing that I said or implied gave any indication that I felt that ministerial responsibility was not being expressed properly.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I accept that. I was not suggesting that it was the case. However, the noble Baroness was saying in the spirit of open debate that she felt that tourism might benefit from having a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry—that that might be more appropriate, perhaps because Ministers there have more time. I welcome the chance to repeat that point.
The countryside needs freedom, lightness of regulation, lack of interference, and the ability of a free market to develop genuinely local and sustainable tourist businesses. We need a bit more sensitivity and common sense from some of those involved in tourism already. I intend to concentrate on the National Farmers Union, the planners, the National Trust and, if time allows, national parks.
First, I sometimes think that the great ones in the NFU privately believe we are seeing the beginning of the slow death of UK agriculture, following the end of much old-style manufacturing industry over the past 100 years. Those are exactly the points that the noble Baroness made in her excellent speech just now. Of course we see, even in lowland England close to the capital, plenty of stretches of unlovely countryside emerging, whether set aside or not, with the scattered remains of deserted sheds and stored machinery that are mute testimony to failed agri-businesses. We hear from the NFU, increasingly and bizarrely, that more tourism is the answer to the "crisis" in agriculture. What part of our national life does not have a crisis these days?

753
Of course a bit more tourism will help in rural areas, and will help those involved in diversifying from agriculture. However, it is certainly not a solution to the problems. The line that the countryside will be revived by more and more tourism is complete tosh. What tourists in their right mind would wish to spend time, let alone money, visiting countryside that is running down because of failing agriculture? Only thriving upland and lowland agriculture can sustain and improve the beauties of our largely man-made and farming-sustained landscapes, which people wish to go and see.
Secondly, I think that our planners in rural areas are so often bent on encouraging theme-park tourism, while getting in the way of truly local and organic attractions. I would like to give an example. If any noble Lords drive past Stonehenge on the A303, they will find it littered with what to me seem naff little brown signs, properly authorised by planners, suggesting that travellers might want to turn off and visit—I am not making this up—something called "Farmer Giles farmstead", a concept more at home in Las Vegas than rural Wiltshire.
The same planners recently prevented the erection of a sign to turn off the same road and visit a wine merchant in a pretty little Wiltshire town. It is located in a beautiful ex-brewery building, and its owners have tried very hard to make it a visitor attraction growing organically out of the local community, with the possibility of picnicking in its pretty courtyard among the flowers and with a fountain. The planners decided that that is not to be—that it is not the sort of tourism that they want to encourage. They want to encourage Farmer Giles farmstead, with its plastic surroundings. I believe in the freedom of choice. If people want to visit Fanner Giles farmstead, that is fine by me. However, they should not be denied the chance to visit other, more local visitor attractions, such as the wine merchant to which I referred.
Thirdly, the National Trust has been going through a very serious crisis over its corporate governance in recent years. Lord Blakenham's committee has come up with ideas on how to deal with the crisis, and his report lands in the lap of Sir William Proby, the new chairman, whom I wish well. The council needs to act very quickly on that, and must not delay for another year while the organisation continues to fight and fracture within itself.
At the same time, an urgent look is needed at policy on the National Trust's own visitor attractions. Sometimes, they themselves are becoming alarmingly theme-parked. Sometimes houses in National Trust ownership have been sterilised and dehumanised, and that very sense of the house having been a home that visitors delight in has been progressively rubbed out. Elsewhere, new, politically correct interpretations by management have been overlaid on the literature and displays of the history of a place that does not deserve it. Visitors are then channelled out through the obligatory National Trust gift shop, which peddles goods that are sourced sometimes from hundreds of miles away and sometimes from abroad. Where is the local honey? Is that a silly point? No. It is a symbol of
754
the total lack of understanding by the senior management of the National Trust. One of the best things that its top executives could do would be to have a policy to help local tourism in areas surrounding National Trust properties. The National Trust should have a "buy local first" policy, with nothing sold in its shops that is made more than 50 miles away. Let the money stay where it is spent.
Why pick on the National Trust? It is the biggest landowner in England and Wales—I cannot speak with authority for Scotland. It owns more historic houses and landscapes than any medieval monarch would have dared dream of, let alone what any Whig magnate might have hoped for after a decent night around the table. It is in a mess. It desperately needs better, more understanding and sensitive executive management and leadership right at the top to deal with those issues, to stop it losing its way and behaving like the worst of the old nationalised industries.
The national parks will have to wait until another day for my observations. While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for introducing the debate, I conclude that tourism in rural areas will benefit from sensible light-touch measures, not from more government initiatives, more campaigns, more taxpayers' money and more statism. I hope that I am not alone in saying that.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for initiating this important debate. As I live in Scotland and own a tourist attraction, I intend to limit my few remarks to Scottish tourism, albeit that tourism is devolved. However, as the Motion is worded, we are concerned with the role that tourism plays within "the United Kingdom economy".
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was right to say that so many of the tourist attractions in the United Kingdom are in the small business league. Many of them are owner-operated, the owners working long hours for little reward. I believe that the Government and all their tourism agencies must acknowledge that.
I sincerely hope that somebody will send my old school friend, Sir William Proby, a copy of tonight's Hansard, so that he might read what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said about his challenging new role.
Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries and arguably its most important indigenous industry, worth £340 billion worldwide. It is a growing industry, with forecasts of annual growth of 4.1 per cent until 2020. Tourism in Scotland injects almost £4 billion annually into the Scottish economy—that is, 5 per cent of GDP—and employs almost 200,000 people. Those 200,000 are employed right the way across Scotland, thus helping to try to maintain a sustainable rural infrastructure. For instance, in the Highlands and Islands region, 15 per cent of the working population are involved in tourism, which is nearly double the Scottish national average. In fact, tourism in Scotland employs more than the oil, gas and whisky industries combined and four times the number of people

755
employed in agriculture and fisheries. It must not be forgotten that both of those industries are suffering from terrible trading conditions, which are totally outwith their control. Tourism might, in a small number of cases, be their vital lifeline for survival.
VisitScotland, which is a non-departmental public body, funded by the Scottish Executive and fully accountable to the Scottish Parliament, has a strategic role in all of this. VisitScotland is the leading public sector tourism agency in Scotland whose role is to promote Scottish tourism in the UK and overseas and to provide leadership and direction for the development of Scottish tourism to help maximise economic benefit throughout Scotland. VisitScotland is doing its best to make Scotland a "must see" destination by marketing and promoting Scotland's many historical, natural, cultural and sporting assets. Seventy per cent of its funding is spent directly on marketing and promotion. It provides partial funding to area tourist boards and supports a range of niche market schemes. I must declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board.
VisitScotland has played a key role in drawing up Tourism Framework for Action, which was published in March 2002 and which sets out opportunities and challenges facing the tourism industry. The TFFA is unique within the UK and I hope that, as a result, this will not be yet another national and costly layer of bureaucracy.
In 2002, VisitScotland launched its new brand for Scotland, reflecting its built heritage, its traditions, its history, its culture, its fantastic scenery, its light, and—dare I say it—its weather and, last but not least, the friendliness of its people. Ninety per cent of visitors to Scotland come from the UK domestic market and VisitScotland therefore carries out a range of marketing activities across the whole of the UK. Particularly in these troubled times of terrorism and war, Scotland is less dependent on overseas markets, although it is trying hard to increase its share of international business. The USA, not surprisingly, is Scotland's largest overseas market, with an annual spend during the year ending 2001 of £201 million.
There have been various attempts to introduce quality assurance schemes and now in Scotland more than 80 per cent of accommodation providers are members of a quality assurance scheme. That compares with only 50 per cent in England and 40 per cent in Wales. However, I am still doubtful about a grading scheme for visitor attractions, particularly for those such as the one that I own: a stately home set in beautiful gardens. Every stately home in the United Kingdom is obviously completely different. A few years ago, my home, Manderston, won the AA's bronze award. That award covered the whole of the UK. My family and staff were justifiably proud of this honour. Yet we were awarded only three stars under the VisitScotland quality assurance scheme against a possible maximum of five. I feel sure that that may in part be because we did not have a public convenience located around every corner.
756
As I have already mentioned, funding for VisitScotland comes directly from the Scottish Executive. However, a proportion of VisitBritain's funding is spent on marketing Scotland overseas and VisitBritain is, of course, accountable to Westminster. Since the merger of the former BTA and the former ETC, there could now well be advantages to Scottish tourism, for example, and benefits from the overseas infrastructure of VisitBritain and its expertise in emerging markets.
Many of us who live in Scotland and are involved in the tourism industry are concerned about the possibility of attention being focused on the marketing of England to the detriment of Scotland. I do hope that the Minister will be able to give his assurance to us today that Scotland will not be disadvantaged by the merger of the former BTA and ETC into VisitBritain and that Her Majesty's Government will continue actively to support the important activities of VisitBritain, which I believe, in turn, must do all it can to help to promote the UK as a number-one tourist attraction.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, as Hamlet himself might have said, contemplating the current plight of the tourism industry,
"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, But in battalions":
BSE, 9/11, FMD, WMD in Iraq and SARS—a veritable arsenal of acronyms which would blow up any industry other than tourism.
I give just one example of the industry's travails. ABTA tells us that the annual pace of business failures among its membership has risen by 109 per cent, with a further 17 travel agents and four tour operators having gone under since last September. But they and the tourism industry as a whole are a resilient lot and will bounce back.
One of the four lessons for the Government in their aim to help the industry to recover at a macroeconomic level is this: they must put in place contingency plans for tourism, much in the same way as they do now for farming and civil defence. Tourism is too important to be left to the vagaries of its next threat. Will my noble friend undertake to consider such emergency planning for tourism? I believe that we should contemplate it.
Secondly, government must recognise that tourism is now a much more important industry than agriculture for the British Exchequer and that it reflects better the British way of life. Even the CLA concedes that rural tourism alone is worth £16 billion to the Treasury. It is time that British farmers conformed to the same demands of the market place as fall on tourism entrepreneurs in our towns and countryside. Better still, the two industries should work together for the benefit of all.
Thirdly, the Government should embed the needs of the tourism industry in all their policy development and strategic objectives. Let us take the example of employment. Not only does tourism currently represent 7 per cent of Britain's workforce but it will

757
provide even more jobs in the future, especially for women, ethnic minorities and school-leavers. Let us think about it, my Lords. Most of us took our first job as youngsters in the tourism or hospitality industry. We should count ourselves lucky that tourism provided the first footing on the employment ladder for so many of us.
Fourthly, we should join the euro. Tourism is the industry that most stands to benefit from such a move. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Patten, should be reminded that the NFU also supports euro entry.
But, lest I give the impression that hitherto the Government have treated tourism as if it were a foreign country, perhaps I may congratulate them on recent positive microeconomic measures and suggest some more. Incidentally, the restyling of the BTA/ETC as VisitBritain, with its additional powers to market England, is both rational and welcome.
The Government's £20 million grant, matched by the private sector, for a recovery campaign in overseas markets, post-FMD and 9/11, is very sensible, as is the £10 million for the Enjoy England and European cities short break campaigns. I also commend the campaign in the USA to revitalise that market. After Iraq, we may hope for good support from our American allies. We want them, as visitors to Europe, to overstay in Britain and to be, indeed, overpaid and over here.
But we can do more. The Government helped the industry through bad times by granting PAYE and VAT payment holidays for tourist firms in trouble. I ask the Minister whether those could be extended? Of all the industries, surely tourism is the one that deserves tax breaks and payment holidays. In the last Budget, the Government quelled the fears of the tourism industry that the air passenger duty tax might be increased. It was not. But how much better if it were abolished altogether. The £1 billion it raises for the Exchequer is, in effect, a tax on tourists coming to—yes—visit Britain. Moreover, by reducing VAT on accommodation nearer to the EU average of 8.5 per cent, we could provide real value for money for such visitors to Britain.
Could the Government recognise more athletically not only the importance of sports tourism, so beloved of my colleague, my noble friend Lord Pendry, whom we congratulate on tabling this important debate tonight, but also the demands of business tourism? Help with the establishment, for example, of additional major international conference facilities in London and Cardiff would be a good start, but help for market towns such as Chester would also strengthen our ability to capture the valuable business market. In Chester we have an amphitheatre but not one large enough to entertain the legions of business tourists who would otherwise beat a path to Britain's best Roman and mediaeval city.
And, à propos Britain's historic market towns—sequins in the tapestry of Britain's countryside—will the Minister support the excellent English Heritage campaign which seeks to equate VAT on all new build and repairs and maintenance to older buildings? Pevsner would turn in his grave now to discover that
758
current VAT rules provide a perverse incentive to neglect the maintenance of such buildings and make otherwise unnecessary alterations to our built heritage.
Britain's churches rightly enjoy a temporary exemption from these mad economics, while the sixth VAT directive is being remodelled in Brussels. But, in the meantime, can the Government help the others? In the presence of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of London and Truro, perhaps I may also suggest that tourism and the churches have a common cause in increasing visitor numbers. Carefully done, might our churches seek to develop their potential, doubling up as tourist information centres? After all, those who pay to stay may also then stay to pray.
But the tourism industry must also help itself. On a recent family holiday in England, staying at a sizeable modern hotel which had been built without a lift for hotel customers, we were appalled to see a disabled tourist having to be carried up and down the stairs by staff and friends alike. We badly need to encourage initiatives such as my own Cheshire County Council's "Tourism for All", which allows prospective visitors to gain on-line information about disabled-friendly hotels and attractions, thereby avoiding the indignities offered to the less physically able to which we were sad witnesses.
On the other hand, I give an example of a good initiative which we discovered at the Ramada Jarvis Hotel in Norwich. There, management had had the gumption to allow an enlightened manageress to purchase oil paintings and watercolours commissioned from local artists to bedeck the hotel's public rooms and bedrooms. This second school of Norwich painting, successors to Crome and Cotman, stood in marked contrast to the dull prints which all too often adorn even the most expensive hotels' corridors. That was a local initiative which added local colour and made it a memorable holiday for me and my family.
In conclusion, I should be grateful if the Minister could respond at the end of the debate or in writing to the several economic suggestions that I have made to help—I hope—tourism to bounce back to full and rude health.
6.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, I have the privilege and pleasure to work in what is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of this country, and among the most visited by tourists. With the opening of the new National Maritime Museum in Falmouth as well as the Tate St Ives and of course the extraordinary Eden Project, which last year brought £111 million into Cornwall and, we are assured in a decade will bring in £2 billion, there is now an enormous growth in tourism in Cornwall, not only numerically but in the variety of attractions and interests offered. There is no doubt either that Cornwall has benefited from the changing patterns in the taking of holidays and that we have holidaymakers all year round rather than just in the summer months.

759
All that is welcome, but there are real difficulties. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten. The first is the future pattern of agriculture and its place in Cornish life. Seventy-seven per cent of the Cornish landmass is agricultural land and, as most Members of this House will know, the pattern of agriculture there is very particular; indeed, unique. The fields are almost all small—sixteen acres is the average size—and they are surrounded by what are called euphemistically "Cornish hedges" which are made from a mixture of stone walls and earth. The roads that wind between them are almost all narrow, so much so that when I was recently taking round a Swedish bishop he asked in bewilderment whether we always drive in ditches in Cornwall.
All this adds to the Cornish experience and no doubt is one of the reasons that people come to Cornwall. But the whole point is that Cornish agriculture is becoming more and more threatened. Small farms are being swallowed up and very often surplus farmhouses are quickly snapped up as second homes. Needless to say, local people do not get a look in because, despite the flourishing and diversifying tourist industry, Cornwall remains, we need to remember, the poorest county in England with significantly the lowest pay in the South West. Indeed, North Cornwall has recently been shown to be the most poorly paid part of England receiving £100 per week less than the national average.
One of the problems about being a tourist area is that many of the jobs are poorly paid and despite the changing patterns of tourism, people feel that they are left out and being neglected. It remains the case that changing patterns have meant that the traditional Cornish industries of farming, fishing and mining, three ways-of-life industries which for many people are the reason they visit Cornwall, are fast disappearing.
Tourism is a vital industry for all of us but there are important questions about the way it has affected Cornish life and how we can protect Cornish life and strengthen it so that tourists can continue to come and be refreshed by an experience of Cornwall which is both different and distinctive. Here, I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. We stand a real risk of being overwhelmed and losing the most precious thing we have to offer in the field of tourism. I hope very much that the Minister can help us to see how we can deal with the particular problem with which we are faced. Finally, I ask that noble Lords on their next holiday come to Cornwall. Forget Devon and join us.
6.55 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I am particularly pleased to speak in tonight's debate. Over the past six years I have spoken in three or four debates on tourism and have become somewhat paranoid because I have presented views which have left me feeling rather alone. I am now
760
on the side of the angels because a number of the points I made in those past debates, which made my contribution seem contentious, have been supported by no other than the Minister for Tourism, Dr Kim Howells.
When thinking about this debate during the Recess I was interested to read in the Independent a very full coverage of the views of Dr Howells. Having disagreed almost entirely with all his views on the Licensing Bill, they were a great relief to me. I find it hard to reconcile what I thought would be his views towards tourism as a result of his views on the Licensing Bill with some of the things he has now said.
I have always said that in this country we have an unparalleled range of attractions to offer our visitors. The only problem is that we have never sold them properly. I avoid the word "marketing". The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, mentioned marketing. In a way, we have over-marketed tourism in this country and relied too much on it. I compare it with something about which I do know, which is the preparation of feature films, their marketing and their sale. With feature films you have to develop the product until you have something which you decide is right for the market at which you are aiming. You then market it and sell it. The important part is getting the product right. Too often we have marketed tourism in a way which has been very good but has become separated from the nature of the product and the value of that product to customers as the customers changes. That is one of the problems in tourism today.
Dr Howells asks, "Why can't we be more like the Germans?". There seems to be a curious pro-German sentiment going through the Department of Trade—a Freudian slip—the Department for Media, Culture and Sport, entirely due to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Indeed, Tessa Jowell praised the Germans for the way in which they treat the arts. We now have Dr Howells praising the Germans for the way they operate as tourists, with which I agree. The Germans spend much time travelling in Germany as well as travelling abroad, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, but so do the French, the Italians and the Spanish. That is quite normal. However, most of those countries have six weeks or more of holiday per year, which makes a difference. The average holiday in this country, particularly among people who tend to go on package tours, is very seldom more than four weeks and often less. That makes it very difficult. Most people want to go to the sun; I do not know why. After all, we have global warming. The sun is very bad for us. The English countryside and the English weather go very well together and form a perfect backdrop to the excellent heritage sites that we have on offer.
The untouched beauties of the British countryside are there for all to see. During the Easter Recess I travelled not far from London along the South Downs because I am keen on racing, though not as keen as I used to be. I tend to go by motor transport through the lanes and byways. Taking a line from Cheltenham to Bath, Salisbury and Newbury down to Brighton, you

761
will pass through some of the most beautiful country in England, although people are somewhat sniffy about the Home Counties. You will still find the most beautiful villages, towns and countryside almost untouched by tourism.
I was amazed, during that fine weather, at the beautiful little villages between Farnham and Guildford, beautifully kept, which seemed to be completely unvisited by tourists. What is happening is that our own people are not visiting these places. Foreign visitors visit these places only if they are adventurous and go under their own steam and, as it were, go on a kind of adventure holiday to find out the hidden secrets.
The Minister, Dr Howells, quite rightly says that we must tempt more Britons to stay at home and visit their own country rather than go abroad. That is more easily said than done. Apart from the weather, which I have just mentioned, it is a curious characteristic—and I noticed it again on my visits during the Easter period—that our own compatriots tend not to go, unless there is a very good reason, off the major roads and byways. One often sees people in England eating sandwiches in their cars close to a major road or motorway. In France or Italy, one sees people in the depth of a forest with a small table and camp chairs and a delicious meal which they have prepared and taken with them. This is a cultural difference. It is not something which Dr Howells, or anyone else, will change very quickly; although, I admire his sentiments in desiring that to happen.
I understand that Dr Howells has already put £4 million into an effort to persuade people to visit our own countryside and our attractions. A great deal more than that will be needed to change those cultural habits, but I praise him for that effort. It is important to develop our home tourism so that we can find out what is wrong with it in order to attract foreign tourists here, not only to visit our attractions once but to return again and again. Currently, that does not happen. We know the reasons why. I do not have the time, nor do I wish to go into the obvious reasons; the difficulties of travel, the high prices in restaurants and the high prices of hotels, which I have mentioned in previous debates. We have not got to grips with these problems.
Apart from the Michelin Guide, there is not a decent reliable guide in this country that I can find. There are various guides with reliable parts. But we have nothing to compare with guides that are available in other European countries, which tell people where to find good value, how to get to these places and what to look for. We have already had a debate in this House about websites in Britain. They are ludicrous. I drew your Lordships' attention to one website. Its first remarks were, "Don't come to this place. The traffic is so awful. Go somewhere else". Unless we change our mentality regarding attracting customers and selling what we have, we shall be in difficulty for some time.
I keep wanting to call Dr Howells "the noble Lord" — perhaps he will end up here. He talks about "gateway packages". I think that is a great idea. He has been accused by some in the travel industry of having
762
crazy ideas about the issues to which I have referred. However, what could be crazier than the Budd committee's idea that the seaside resorts of this country will be resuscitated and restored by putting in casinos. That is madness. We all know what casinos at the lower level do. They are not charming places. They are turning full circle to where in the old entertainment arcades the fruit machine had its birth. If the proposal is carried through, I predict that we shall witness an unattractive and tacky attempt to restore seaside resorts, which—and this is a personal view—will end in disaster. The Departure for Culture, Media and Sport now has about 18 civil servants working on how the Budd report will translate itself into gambling deregulation, attracting tourists and so on. I hope that this proposal will rot on the vine.
Various interesting points have been made and I hope that other debates will follow. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, introduced the important point of the arts. Yesterday I was at the National Gallery where I had a luncheon appointment. I went an hour early. I am one of those people whom, for some reason—perhaps it is because I look English or that I will not knock them over—people tend to ask for directions or for guidance. I get into conversations with people. I am absolutely convinced that there is a large group of people from abroad who come to London expressly to visit the major galleries and museums—the Tate, the National Gallery and so on.
I saw large numbers of people. I talked to a Danish tourist yesterday. It was his second visit. He has come here for a week expressly to visit these major galleries. The National Gallery is a wonder, as is the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate. Today's Evening Standard states that even in New York we are now recognised as being the centre of the arts. So we must recognise that in London we have not only Buckingham Palace and the changing of the guards, but we have an unequalled attraction. We must get people over here to visit the cities and to go out into the countryside, as Dr Howells suggests.
My time is running short and I shall not run over it, but I end the debate on a low note. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned public conveniences. There are none in the places where they are needed. We are an ageing population and we have many ageing tourists. I read in the Independent that in London 24 Portaloos have to be brought in at weekends to satisfy demand in Westminster. I do not know why we have not restored those fine old Victorian public conveniences. It is no wonder that everyone uses the streets, the monuments, the railings and the pavements, with all the distress and problems that that causes. That is just one issue that should be targeted in the cities. We should bring back public conveniences. They are a natural facility that should exist.
This has been an interesting debate. Now that a new tone has been set by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, I hope that we shall have many more debates so that we can explore many of the ideas that have been raised.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for introducing this important and timely debate.
Tourism is the fifth largest industry in England and the largest industry in Scotland and Wales. It generates about 4.5 per cent of total United Kingdom GDP and ranks seventh in the international tourism league. Furthermore, the multiplier effect indicates that it is not just the industry itself that benefits from tourists visiting the UK; many other service industries, such as shops, restaurants and taxis, rely on the income generated. For every £100 spent in tourism, another £50 goes to other industries. The significance of this industry to our economy can therefore not be ignored. Tourism within this country must be encouraged to grow and prosper.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, tourism should be high on the Government's agenda. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to tourism as being a "Whitehall orphan". I must say that when I took on the brief for culture, media and sport, of course first there was no mention of tourism; and, secondly, I thought to myself, why is such a major industry not under the umbrella of the DTI? It certainly is not necessarily Conservative policy that it should be moved to the DTI, but I think that questions should be asked. I know that many people in the tourism industry feel that they are in many ways the poor relation.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, that it is not the Minister, Kim Howells, but we in this House who are busy on the Bill dealing with Ofcom. He is busy in the Commons turning over all the many good changes that we achieved on the Licensing Bill. An important point that should be made is that it is tough that Ministers—and may I say Shadow Ministers—spend so much time dealing with legislation when there is so much that concerns our various briefs. We should be out there more. How we reconcile the two is hard to achieve.
Regulation of the tourism industry has undergone considerable change in the past five years. In 1999 the Government abolished the English Tourist Board and replaced it with the English Tourism Council, consequently devolving the marketing function to individual regions. We believe that removing the marketing function from the English Tourism Council has been detrimental to the industry's prolonged prosperity. I agree with my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu who said that this led to a fragmentation of efforts. He should know with his in-depth practical experience of the industry. I think we should applaud the noble Lord for having made his first speech on this subject 50 years ago.
The Government announced last year that the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority were to merge to form VisitBritain. That new body is responsible for marketing both England and the UK as tourist destinations. We fear that that merger will result in an internal conflict of interest
764
within the new body, which is charged with the marketing functions of both England and the UK. Approximately 15 percent of British tourism benefits from the activities of specific organisations which promote parts of the UK outside England. Will the Minister clarify what measures the Government have adopted to ensure that the potential internal conflicts of interest faced by VisitBritain will be prevented?
In January this year, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published a report entitled The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism. The report raised serious concerns about the sustainability and funding of the tourism industry. The primary concern raised was that of recovery following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and September 11th. The committee reiterated our concerns that tourism should be placed high on the agenda and repeated our conclusion that the support structure provided in response to that crisis was grossly inadequate.
In August last year, an article in the Independent claimed that the decision to show a photo of Tony Blair in a yellow protective suit cost Britain approximately £1 billion in lost revenue. The industry cannot afford to tolerate such an unnecessary oversight.
Furthermore, as has already been said, the effects of September 11th continue to impact adversely on the tourism industry. Iraq, and now the SARS virus, bringing additional fears of flying, thereby affecting inbound tourists, have compounded that challenge.
In agreeing with the Select Committee report, we believe that the Government's response to this crisis has been to adopt a laissez faire approach. For such a fragmented industry to survive, a strong and supportive infrastructure is imperative. The Government have systematically failed to provide a sustained increase in investment for tourism for Britain as a whole and, in particular, England.
Scotland and Wales have been granted massive increases in funding from the devolved administrations, while England's grant-in-aid was cut repeatedly prior to the ETC being folded into the BTA. The British Tourist Authority's grant-in-aid has remained static for years with the exception of the "Only in Britain, Only in 2002" campaign last year, which generated an extra 1 million visitors. That kind of extra investment should be placed on a stable footing.
Furthermore, the alarming disparities in the funding of the three tourist boards prior to the establishment of VisitBritain cannot be justified. The Scottish Tourist Board received £19.4 million, the Welsh Tourist Board received £15.4 million but the English Tourism Council received only £11.7 million. Indeed the Select Committee recognised that inconsistency and in comparing the figures stated:
"These figures leave no doubt that there has been a sustained problem of under-investment by the public sector in tourism that has affected English Tourism in particular. It has long been recognised—in principle—that the special characteristics of tourism and its revenue generating potential justified specific public sector support".

765
The Government have repeatedly talked about sustained, increased investment across the board in the public sector. In the tourism industry, there have been repeated Government reforms without sustained investment and without a successful solution. It is time for the Government to make a commitment to long-term and sustainable growth.
The new body, VisitBritain, on behalf of English tourism, will continue to receive the same level of funding this year as the English Tourism Council. However, £3.6 million will be channelled to regional tourist boards via the regional development agencies. The Government's move to shift the funding for tourism at the regional level through the RDAs is, at best, a mixed blessing. Success now depends on a close working relationship between VisitBritain and the regional tourist boards. At present, that is not always the case.
Now that the new organisation is in place, we must do all we can to support and encourage its development. Although we welcome the aim behind the Government's new structural changes, we have reservations about whether the measures proposed will deliver the improvements for tourism that the Government seek. Key issues will affect the success or otherwise of that new move. Effective distribution of information is essential—that is equally applicable to domestic visitors as to international tourists.
The English Tourism Council and now VisitBritain have ensured that the key tourist information centres have a better support network than ever before. Those information centres are effectively the front line of UK tourism. For example, last year the Britain and London Visitor Centre on Regent's Street dealt with enquiries from more than 500,000 people.
That said, I think that many would agree that it often remains difficult to book a hotel or a package holiday at home. We urge VisitBritain to make an online booking site a priority. Such a resource is urgently needed to boost our domestic industry and encourage the British to holiday in this country.
VisitBritain has arranged a "Royal Tourism Day" on 10th June. The Royal Family will spend the day visiting different parts of the UK to highlight excellence in British tourism. However, I can already hear cries of confusion with people asking: "Why is the website entitled visitengland.com when the new body is called VisitBritain?" We must make it as straightforward as possible for both the domestic market and overseas visitors to enjoy so many of our worthwhile attractions.
The Bradford Industrial Museum provides an excellent example. The museum is based at Moorside Mills in Bradford, which used to process raw wool into best cloth. It is now a flourishing attraction where visitors can experience the sounds and smells of engines that once powered the mills throughout Yorkshire. At the attraction, one can see all the old processes at work, including shire horses. It has also joined with the local authority, the Science Museum, the Heritage Lottery Fund and others to purchase working vintage buses from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s for free vintage bus rides.
766
Nearby attractions include the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television—its current excellent exhibition, "Fabula", brings together a group of young and emerging artists from the UK, France, Germany, Israel and the United States, and has received great reviews. Both attractions show the potential benefit of having a diverse, original tourism product to regenerate an area that has passed its industrial prime. On the arts, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the major galleries in London, such as the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and our museums, such as the British Museum, are definitely attracting visitors.
Visitors to Britain come here for different reasons. I was especially interested in the perspective offered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—that our religious buildings act as a magnet, bringing great economic advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to our stately homes. Our historic houses are an enormously important attraction to Britain and focused marketing is therefore key.
Promotion of the many attractions that we offer is key, alongside the provision of tourist information. Our rural communities contain a wealth of attractions, and promotion of them can be achieved in different ways. For example, Britain once had a terrible reputation for food. We now have every reason to proclaim Britain as a nation of food lovers and producers of wonderful, varied food. That translates into promotion for our rural communities, with their wealth of restaurants, hotels and bed and breakfasts.
Padstow in Cornwall has in recent years been transformed—first by one dynamic and enthusiastic foodie, Rick Stein, and then by others who have taken advantage of his success and opened more restaurants, retail outlets and visitor attractions.
I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Patten and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro said. Tourism can be a mixed blessing, especially for those who live in the area all the time—the locals. As the right reverend Prelate suggested, there is a risk of being overwhelmed and losing the very thing that we need: tourism. Yes, theme parks can be a turn-off, but in contrast, projects such as the Eden Project in Cornwall should be applauded.
In conclusion, I agree with my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: tourism is one of our few industries capable of making a massive contribution to Britain in so many ways. I am glad that we have had this debate, which has given your Lordships the chance to put pressure on the Government to support this vital resource for our economy.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House is grateful for the opportunity provided by my noble friend Lord Pendry to draw attention to the vital importance of tourism for Britain's economy. I congratulate him on his speech, which raised most of the issues that we must consider, and also on his work on tourism over many years in both Houses, which enables him to bring real insights to the issues from which we have benefited today.

767
The centrality of a vibrant tourism industry to our national life is something to which my noble friend first drew attention in Breaking New Ground, a document that formed the Government's view on tourism and led to the publication of our first ever tourism strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, in February 1999. The House will recognise that his commitment to the industry is matched by that of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, who exceeds him in longevity in the field. We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has had expertise of these topics for a long time. We are extremely grateful to two powerful speakers for launching the debate.
There is no doubting the huge role that tourism plays, not only in the economic life of this country, but also in its social and cultural life. Britain is the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world. In 2001, tourism contributed £74 billion to the national economy. There are 2.1 million people directly employed in tourism—around 7 per cent of employees in Great Britain. Since 1992, tourism has been responsible for one in six new jobs. That subject formed the burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean, who indicated how crucial the industry was to the economy.
I note the noble Baroness's suggestion that it might be beneficial and more accurate to locate responsibility for tourism in the Department of Trade and Industry. On this occasion, I shall resist that suggestion and stay loyal to the department that I represent today. We believe that we are meeting the challenges of tourism. I recognise that the challenges are acute—not just that tourism is a significant part of the economy, but that it is predominantly arranged in small components and small industrial enterprises mostly thought to be given effective government support. That is why some issues of tourism support are perhaps more difficult than those in any other industry that runs into crisis.
The tourism sector is most prone to crises that are difficult to forecast or to respond to in the short term. Several noble Lords reflected on the devastating year of 2001 when foot and mouth disease caused enormous damage to our agriculture. But we all recognised when those points were made that the outbreak had a similarly devastating effect on our tourism industry. Much of our attractive countryside was out of bounds to visitors during that period.
September 11th matched and outweighed the previous crisis affecting travel from the United States—the Lockerbie bombing. The travelling public in the United States are unusually sensitive to the threat of outrageous acts causing death and destruction. Although such acts may dominate the media for a relatively short period, unfortunately their reverberations in the tourism industry can continue for years afterwards. It took us many years to recover our trade from the United States after Lockerbie.
We are still sustaining the effect of the devastating anxieties produced in American society as a result of September 11th. Inevitably, the war in Iraq contributes
768
to that aspect. Although the medical profession will identify that the present threat of SARS in this country looks very muted, and although the outbreak of that frightening disease will probably cause limited numbers of deaths across the globe, the uncertainty of the situation and its impact will mostly affect tourism. We pay the price, even though objectively the risk involved may be limited. That is the nature of the tourism industry.
I say to my noble friend Lord Harrison that we have sought to learn lessons from such disasters. They are not easily overcome. It is not easy to rebuild confidence after it has been shattered through events over which none of us has any control. I assure him and the House that the tourism industry emergency response group set up after the September 11th horror has made detailed contingency arrangements to respond quickly to any challenges that the industry might face in future. That does not mean that the response can always be dramatically and immediately successful. But I assure the House that we recognise the importance of having machinery to try to absorb the shocks of such unforeseen events.
It is vital that we market England to the domestic audience, which, after all, is our largest and most robust market. Secondly, it is important to establish a single voice for the industry, which we have now created. It is important that the industry can respond quickly to such events and make the most of new opportunities as they arise.
Following the creation of the tourism alliance in September 2002, the Government and industry developed the million visitor marketing campaign. That unprecedented partnership contributed to recovery compared to the same period in the difficult year of 2001. An additional 1.64 million visits to the UK were made in 2002. It also provided a model for the long-term future of Britain's tourism industry.
We have built on that model with an ambitious plan for a new framework for tourism. The main elements are the launch on 1st April of VisitBritain, as several noble Lords recognised, which is a lead body combining the strength and skills of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council. Its remit is to promote inbound tourism and to market English tourism to a domestic audience. There will be an increased role for regional development agencies in England in providing strategic leadership for tourism. In addition, there will be a closer engagement of private industry in partnerships at all levels and proactive industry sponsorship by the DCMS.
We are concerned that initiatives to improve skills and training should continue. There should also be a fresh look at accommodation quality assurance schemes. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we might also consider the creation of a web site to market effective accommodation. There is no doubt that, in the more distant past, British tourism suffered from a general reputation of having a less-than-successful strategy for ensuring that accommodation was up to standard. Improvements, which are appreciated in

769
many parts, have taken place in recent years. But we must communicate that effectively and improve our marketing in that regard.
The benefits of the new structures of VisitBritain will ensure that England receives an excellent marketing service, co-ordinated at national and regional level to remove duplication and to make the most of the collective effort of all sectors promoting tourism here. The tourism industry in England will now have a single point of contact at national level for the promotion of England at home and overseas, and for information about tourism in England and the rest of Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, advocated powerfully the case for Scotland. I emphasise that Scotland's case is duly recognised. VisitBritain's role in promoting the whole of Britain overseas is not affected by its new remit to market England domestically. VisitBritain will, of course, be the focal point for ensuring that we tap into and continue to expand the market for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for visitors from overseas. It will ensure that strong and separate brand identities for England, Scotland and Wales are retained and developed, while encouraging a more coherent marketing agenda throughout Britain.
A good deal of support, spending and promotion for the development of the tourism industry has always been done at regional level. In the regions of England, DCMS has devolved responsibility for the delivery of tourism strategies to the regional development agencies, with the aim of embedding tourism deeply into regional economic development strategy and to ensure that policy and product development is relevant and deliverable. That is essential because, as several speakers emphasised, different parts of the country have different selling points, different attractions and different support needs.
I recognise the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that tourism may not be an unalloyed boon to a particular area. There should always be a balance between, on the one hand, the needs of local communities and the people who live there and, on the other, the needs of the tourists. It is important that we recognise that particular parts of the country can suffer dreadful privations from the onslaught of tourists in certain months of the year. Cornwall stands out as an example of that, although it is also true that the economy of Cornwall is crucially dependent on successful tourism, given the limited economic opportunities in the county. A balance must be struck, and the marketing must be effective.
The Government are aware that approximately 70 per cent of in-bound visitors to the UK come through London. The value of tourism must be spread throughout the regions, and that is one of the Government's key priorities. We recognise and take pride in the enormous range of attractions with which London presents the visitor. We are well aware that, when we market the delights of Britain abroad, London is bound to feature hugely. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for emphasising that fact this evening. It is also the case, of course, that we want London to be the gateway for
770
tourists to enjoy other parts of Britain, rather than being the sole port of call before they move on to another capital offering similar but lesser delights. The country of Britain can offer a different experience to that offered by London, and it can be greatly rewarding.
The private sector will play a key role in the new arrangements, helping to set the marketing agenda. It will work in co-ordination with Visit. Britain to promote a coherent message about what the nations and regions of Britain have to offer. There will be campaigns funded jointly by industry, regional and local government and VisitBritain. We see so much duplication of effort and so many mixed messages. The trick is to get industry, regional government and VisitBritain to make a concerted effort to get the most for Britain, the tourism industry and the wider economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, mentioned the level of direct government funding to the industry. He was slightly more generous than his Front Bench colleague in recognising the contribution made by government funding. To the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who put her comments about government funding in a more astringent and critical form, I say that, of course, we would like to see more money spent. The noble Baroness will recognise that we are committed to spending £10 million more on tourism. DCMS provides £50 million of direct government funding a year, and, on top of that, the Government pledge hundreds of millions of pounds in support of the arts, sports and galleries, which, as noble Lords recognised, are of benefit to tourism. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who was most emphatic about the importance of our national museums and art galleries to our appeal to tourists.
I take the noble Baroness's criticism in the spirit in which it is intended—as an attempt to increase the budget for my department. I look forward to its being reflected in the Chancellor's distribution next year. However, I counsel the House to recognise that, although it is easy for the Opposition to call for more money to be spent, it is more difficult for them to square that with their commitment to a 20 per cent reduction in overall public support for all aspects of British national life. I leave the noble Baroness to wrestle with that issue on another occasion.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London stressed, churches and cathedrals are a vital part of our cultural heritage. A Force for Our Future, published in December 2001, recognised the important links between tourism and heritage sites. Westminster Abbey is one of London's premier attractions as well as being a UNESCO world heritage site. I recognise the point that the right reverend Prelate made about the costs borne by the Church authorities that are not related to the purpose for which the churches are there but are occasioned by the use to which tourists put the buildings. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the department intends to meet the Church Commissioners and members of the Archbishops' Council this summer to discuss a broad sweep of issues

771
relating to ecclesiastical heritage. I have not the slightest doubt that, at those meetings, the right reverend Prelate's voice will be appropriately and significantly heard.
We must increase the productivity and competitiveness of the tourism industry. We are aware of the success of some aspects of the German tourism industry, to which reference has been made. There is room for improvement in the way in which we organise some of our facilities in the United Kingdom. That is why we are concerned to have a proactive tourism industry sponsorship agenda, aimed at improving the effectiveness of the industry. The aim is to develop a competitive and sustainable tourism industry. We must enhance the skills of our people in that respect, but we should not sell ourselves short. For instance, we should recognise that, although the French are good at emphasising that they are the culinary leaders of the world, lists of top restaurants show that the greatest concentration is in the United Kingdom. We should not get caught up in age-old stereotypes about success, and we should pay due regard to what we have in this country. We should enhance our skill levels, our performance and what we offer tourists. We should blow our own trumpet more vigorously than in the recent past.
Reference has been made to Lord Kim and Mr Kim: Dr Kim Howells is the Minister for Tourism in the Commons. Of course he is busy with legislation; all Ministers lead a busy life. However, Ministers are aware that legislation is one dimension of the job and that the work they do outside Parliament is another. Dr Howells is extremely vigorous in promoting tourism. Only last week, he launched the campaign to market England—"Enjoy England"—with the help of television advertisements. It is the first time for a long time that there have been advertisements on television specifically directed towards marketing England. I have no doubt that they will have a beneficial effect. The campaign that my honourable friend has launched is a unique partnership with a value of approximately £4 million and brings together, for the first time, regional development agencies, VisitBritain and the private sector. I have not the slightest doubt that that campaign will bring considerable benefits.
In this respect, I emphasise that there are a whole range of issues on which we focused today in a somewhat critical vein. But there are areas on which we should congratulate ourselves for making progress. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, emphasised that there are areas of Britain, in terms of attractiveness, to which we have not paid significant regard in the past. I welcome his contribution and that of my noble friend, Lord Pendry, that we need to look at the issue of resorts and the way in which we can enhance their attractiveness so that more people stay at home to enjoy the benefits of Britain.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised his concerns about the issue of casinos and whether they would bring benefits to seaside resorts. I am not sure that he would say that if he were in Monaco now, nor am I suggesting that we could—or would even want
772
to—replicate that level of casino industry here. But there are a number of our seaside resorts which would not mind just a tiny fraction of the resources which come within that framework, which is almost totally based on casinos. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept that criticism too fully.
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that we live in a country which is uniquely well placed to attract tourists and we attract them in very large numbers. Of course, we could do better. But we all recognise that we have historic cities, beautiful countryside, great stately homes, a wonderful coastline, internationally renowned sporting events and facilities, world-class museums and galleries. They all need to be marketed to people who would benefit enormously from visiting this country and taking advantage of what it has to offer. Very few countries can compare with the range which we have to offer.
I recognise that there are areas in which we can do better. However, I have not the slightest doubt that the VisitBritain campaign, which is setting out in a co-ordinated way to market the glories of this country for the benefit of potential visitors—of course, in the long term to the benefit of ourselves too—will be successful. It is on that basis that I conclude this debate on an optimistic note.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate and made a real contribution by advancing positive ways to improve the position of tourism and hospitality in the United Kingdom. I enjoyed the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. However, I must chide him that, as president of the Broadstairs Society, it took me, a lay member of that society, to praise the seaside resort of Broadstairs, where I was born. Perhaps it was right that I should do that and not necessarily the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, always makes a powerful speech on tourism and he did so again today. I thank him for his recognition of the importance of the document that I wrote entitled Breaking New Ground and, in particular, his comment that it was not heavily party political. I am sure that he says that with real conviction because the Liberal Democrats pinched much of it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London raised an interesting aspect of the link between religion and tourism. It is one that I have not heard in parliamentary debates in the past, but I hope that it will not be the last time. My noble friend Lady Dean made a very thoughtful speech, as one always expects of her. I would argue with her on one aspect, although I agree with her that tourism is too lowly down the Whitehall chain. I disagree that it should be with the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall not go into it now but my noble friend knows that I believe that there should be a new department for sport and tourism which would link together well.
I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Patten, but I am not so sure that I have completely recovered from those late-night sittings in another place in the

773
1980s and early 1990s. However, he seems to be fit and well. Some of the points he made about the rural economy and the National Trust are interesting. Many of his comments were controversial and I would not entirely agree. But he made his speech with his usual charisma and style—and that is as far as I shall go.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made a powerful plea for Scottish tourism, too, praise the role of VisitScotland and I concur with what is being done. I am sure that it will hear what he said. I have listened to my noble friend Lord Harrison on many occasions—for example, when he was an MEP—battling away for tourism. Tonight is no exception and I am sure that the House will hear him on many occasions.
I shall pass on the kind words of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to the Minister for Tourism. I am sure that he will appreciate the rather preferable remarks from that direction than came from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was just having a little "Lord McNally". It is true that I mentioned marketing, but when the noble Lord reads the Official Report tomorrow he will find that I said that it was not the complete answer. I think that he implied that I thought that it was rather more important than I said.
What can I say about the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe? I am a great admirer of her on the Front Bench. She does a tremendous job and I shall not go into the issues with which I disagree. But there was so much that she said which agreed with my speech that I could hardly have a real go at her. Therefore, I shall not be over-critical. Many of her comments were thoughtful and helpful. As chairman of the all-party sports group, one of its great achievements is that we find we have much more in common than not. Some of that has come though in this debate.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his helpful speech. I am confident that he will ensure that his department takes note of the issues raised in this debate. It is to be hoped that the department will consider and act upon those matters which have been made in such a constructive way. Although there was not a packed Chamber to listen to the words of wisdom from noble Lords, I believe that those in the tourism world will know that there are a number of people in this House who are their friends and are prepared to fight their corner from time to time.
With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MRSA in Hospitals
7.48 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any new proposals for dealing with methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the menacing growth of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, commonly
774
known as MRSA, in our hospitals, and indeed outside them. I hope that my noble friend Lady Andrews will be able to explain what the Government are doing and answer some perplexing questions.
First, the Government have made commendable advances in tackling these problems—in particular, their introduction of mandatory reporting, the setting of standards for hospital trusts, the introduction of guidelines and the return of matrons. These are all welcome steps, among others, to which my noble friend will no doubt refer.
But are they enough? I doubt it very much indeed. If we look at some of the plethora of figures and, in particular, the trend, we find them disturbing. The first recorded cases of MRSA in the UK were in 1992—there were 104 cases. In 2001, there were nearly 5,000 cases—4,904 to be exact. Last year, the figure was 7,000 cases in England and Wales, which compares badly with the early years. Therefore, it is a growing menace, and not just numerically because new strains have been reported in the United States. One strain in particular has hit thousands of fit, young Americans with no links to hospitals. If, as is possible, those bacteria come here, it complicates our problems even more.
We know that the most vulnerable are feeble, older people whose immune systems have been weakened and who may have been prescribed too many antibiotics. We know also that dirty hospitals contribute to the bacteria. At least, we thought we knew that. Now Ministers are saying that there is no strict relationship between hospital cleanliness and MRSA, although it is an important consideration.
Where do we stand? To complicate matters further, Paul Burstow, MP, who has a fine record on this subject, found in a recent study that two-thirds of hospitals with the worst records for controlling MRSA infection had won the highest "green light" rating for cleanliness. That is a puzzle.
No one is going to advocate dirty hospitals, but if clean hospitals have a poor record on MRSA, just what can they do? To what extent are their infection control systems effective? If they are not effective, what is wrong with them? Is it technique, training, lack of money or failure of will? We need urgent answers to these questions if we are to make any real progress. We need to know whether hygiene is related to MRSA. It would seem to be a straightforward question with an obvious answer, but in view of ministerial statements that there is no strict relationship between hospital cleanliness and MRSA, we need to know from the Government whether it is factor, and if so, to what extent. If it is, then it is right to devote more resources and effort to improving hygiene, but if there is no relationship, then hospital hygiene, although important for other reasons, can be discounted in relation to MRSA and other issues demanding greater attention. What is the Government's judgment on this?
If hygiene is a factor—I would be astonished if it is not—then the present haphazard methods and approach have to end, and quickly. Press, radio and

775
television repeatedly provide examples of unwashed hands, dirty toilets and showers, and a failure to wear gloves. Doctors, nurses, cleaners and patients themselves must wake up to the cleanliness challenge. Constant posters should be on hospital walls proclaiming, "Wash Your Hands", as happens in my local Epsom Hospital.
Infection control lies at the very heart of any attempt to cope with MRSA. I know that the Government have allocated cash for this, but to what extent is it being systematically monitored? The general shortage of hospital beds creates great difficulties, but all patients with MRSA should be removed from the wards and isolated. This does not happen at present because of the bed shortage, but a room or bed that has had an MRSA patient should be properly sterilised before the arrival of the next patient. What is the Government's view of the high level of bed occupancy in relation to MRSA? Many hospitals are full to capacity.
Overall, what is the Government's assessment of this major battle between bacteria and antibiotics, the outcome of which will have profound and far-reaching consequences not just for this country, but for mankind? Are the bacteria winning? If we reach the stage where antibiotics cannot cope with new strains of bacteria, we are all back in the pre-antibiotic period. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, in its admirable report published in 2001 on resistance to antibiotics, stated that:
"The inevitable rise and spread of resistance will render existing drugs progressively less useful. In the absence of new drugs, this leaves us increasingly at the mercy of infections. We cannot eliminate resistance".
Having done such a splendid job, the committee added that we could slow it down by using antibiotics only when necessary, and by rigorous infection control and basic hygiene, both enforced through surveillance. I hope that my noble friend Lady Andrews can tell us what the Department of Health has done about the committee's recommendation for a specific campaign against the inappropriate use of antibiotics, to be repeated at frequent and regular intervals. How effective is the Government's campaign on this and what are the intervals?
Do we have sufficient basic knowledge to understand how bacteria mutate for their survival? Or is it the failure of the pharmaceutical companies to research and develop better antibiotics? What are the Government doing to press the pharmaceutical companies to conduct more effective research? It has been claimed that the companies are not doing sufficient research because it may not be profitable. Whatever the reason, it is vital that the Government take some responsibility for pressing them because new antibiotics are undoubtedly an extremely important factor in dealing with MRSA.
It is difficult to pin things down, but a few weeks ago, in a Starred Question, I asked the Government to press the pharmaceutical companies to do further research on new antibiotics. The response was simply to say that it was important that we should invest in
776
research in this area. That really was no answer. I should like to repeat the question to my noble friend tonight: will the Government press the pharmaceutical companies to intensify their search for new and more effective antibiotics?
In so far as this is an international problem, the Government should consider calling a world conference of the countries with a particular interest to see whether we can get better co-ordinated research. How do United States pharmaceutical companies compare with ours for helpful research? The Government should campaign for closer co-ordination of research effort and facilities with countries like the United States and the European nations because this is a genuinely international problem.
The battle with MRSA is undoubtedly one of the most important that the National Health Service has had to face since the heady and exuberant days of its foundation. We are all anxious that these so-called "superbugs" should be defeated, or the consequences will be catastrophic. I look forward to the response on behalf of the Government from my noble friend.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for tabling this Question. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has explained the current situation. I should also apologise to the House because I decided only this morning to make a contribution to this debate and I called to add my name to the list at a very late stage. I am so used to being placed towards the end of a speaking list that I assumed that I would be in a similar position today. I was wrong, and I should say how much I look forward to the contributions from later speakers.
I hope that I will be forgiven for suggesting some lateral thinking on the serious problem of MRSA infection at such an early stage in the debate. The title of the 14th annual Euro meeting in Basel this time last year was, "The patient is waiting". I interpreted that to mean that at the start of the 21st century, only a relatively small proportion of all diseases can be adequately treated or even cured, and only a small proportion of all patients have access to medicinal products at affordable prices.
Although that may seem a harsh judgment, it is true that for some diseases we do not yet have a rational drug treatment; that diseases are often poorly treated, and that too many patients in poor countries do not receive any benefit.
When I arrived at my surgery this morning, I noticed for the first time the actual wording of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that might differentiate it from the recent series of Questions we have had on MRSA. He has asked whether there are any "new proposals". I suspect that there are no new proposals, so I thought that I would help the Government with a brief intervention in order to draw their attention to a therapeutic treatment that may well be able to control infection by methicillin resistant

777
staphylococcus aureus. The treatment is not new in the sense that it has not been used before, but it will be new to the Department of Health, which must be prepared to examine a wider range of treatments rather than continue to rely on the search for a "magic bullet", the cure that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said he was seeking.
I refer to ozone therapy. The gas mixture 02/03 is administered by various routes: topical application on skin and mucosa, or parenteral injection and exposure to blood. In any event, ozone will come into contact with a film of water present on the skin surface, or in the interstitial fluids, or in plasma.
Basic clinical research on ozone therapy has been too little and too slow. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McNair—he was removed with most of the hereditary Peers—who tried to interest successive governments in this. But it takes time. The therapeutic progress in cancer therapy has not been as fast and positive as had been predicted. Three decades have already passed since President Nixon declared war on cancer. Although knowledge about tumorigenesis has shown an incredible expansion, the mortality rate has barely decreased.
It is intuitive that ozone can have an important therapeutic role in various types of infections because it generates reactive oxygen species also produced by granulocytes and macrophages during an infection process.
When faced by problems with diffuse antibiotic-resistant bacteria, rich countries continue to use often useless, expensive antibiotics, while poor countries, through sheer necessity, use ozone. It is used either as a gas, as ozonised bidistilled water or as ozonised saline or oils. These ozonised solutions have a cleansing effect and act as a powerful disinfectant that kills antibiotic- resistant and anaerobic bacteria.
In these countries, physicians have had to devise all kinds of ways to employ the gas or, even more easily, the ozonised water, to avoid environmental contamination. In the West, we still need to create the mental attitude profitably to use ozone. Once medical personnel realise the advantages it will be put into general use to the benefit of patients. Moreover, with the current increase in medical costs, ozone therapy deserves attention because it reduces hospital assistance and is extremely cheap. The good news is that the work has been done and the equipment and knowledge are available.
I apologise for introducing an aspect on which the Minister will not have received a brief. There is no doubt that ozone therapy will play an increasingly important role in healthcare in the future. Now is not the time to explain how controlled exposure to minute amounts of ozone can immediately halt the process of dental decay and eliminate the use of the dental drill. The prospects for primary dental care are enormous.
I should also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for my deviation, but I sincerely believe that the Government should be prepared to assess a wider variety of treatments.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, two months ago I sustained two fractures of my left leg when I got it stuck in a fire door in your Lordships' House. I went to St Thomas's Hospital for an X-ray and, as my bones are soft and the fractures were unstable, I needed an operation. A doctor at St Thomas's told me that in my case the risk of MRSA was very great and that it might be wise to go elsewhere.
In 1997 I had the honour to be a Member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology relating to resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. The committee reported on 17th March 1998. The report stated:
"MRSA poses one of the biggest challenges to infection control. It is common, it moves easily between hospital and community settings".
One of the recommendations in the report is that there should be a national MRSA strategy. This would control MRSA and also bear down on other infections. Even though Britain has had guidelines and surveillance, MRSA keeps increasing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this life and death matter today. Because of infections, many people have become most concerned about being admitted to hospital. In recent weeks I have heard of several people personally who have been infected with MRSA.
On Tuesday, 25th March, I attended a service of thanksgiving for the life of Major General Sir James Eyre at the Guards' Chapel. He had been admitted to an Oxford hospital with complications. While there, he was infected with MRSA which his widow, a surgeon's daughter, says contributed to his death. She said to me, "Nothing about MRSA has been written on his death certificate". "Why not?", I asked.
Last week, on Easter Monday, an old school friend came over with her husband. They told me that he had been admitted to St Mary's Paddington as an emergency in excruciating pain. He had an epidural but, before long, he developed a large sore with MRSA at the site of the injection. His wife was horrified at the lack of hygiene in the hospital and is writing to the chairlady, a Member of your Lordships' House.
Later, while staying with a friend in France, he was again taken to hospital as an emergency. This time he was admitted to a clinic in Biarritz, which was spotless and the staff polite and clean.
Recently, at a conference, I was talking to a supplier of paper towels. He told me that King's College Hospital had started using a good quality paper towel, which nurses liked and so they washed their hands. He said that the hospital had reverted back to hard, cheaper towels which made the nurses' hands sore, and so hand washing lapsed. I am sure that all noble Lords know the importance of washing hands between patients to help prevent the spread of hospital infections. Good quality soft towels are one source of encouragement.

779
The public are getting frustrated at the dirty conditions of some of our hospitals, which have no discipline and supervision about cleanliness at the patient level. The Government have tried to do their best. More money has been given to the NHS, but it does not seem to have stemmed the spread of MRSA infection. Many people want to see the prevention of the spread by screening hospital admissions, detecting and isolating infected patients and, surely, screening hospital staff who may infect patients and become carriers. More special funding will be required for laboratories and infection control to implement these measures fully. The design of hospitals is important; they should have more basins and disinfection points, such as alcohol wipes and gels by every bed.
We cannot go on increasing the risk to patients. Is it not time for a national research project on MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant organisms? I can think of no better place than Imperial College, in the heart of London, where M RSA has the highest rate of infection in this country. The worldwide problem of SARS has made people sit up and think of infection control.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House about reporting of staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias. Why is there a mandatory and a voluntary scheme? All regions reported higher numbers under the mandatory scheme. When looking at age distribution, this information is obtained only from the voluntary reporting scheme. It is worrying that babies under one have the highest rate of infection, followed by people over 65. Would it not be more efficient and less complicated to have one mandatory scheme?
At a conference on the safety of surgical instruments some months ago, I asked a question on MRSA to a surgeon who was speaking. He said it was something which sometimes infected frail, elderly people. I detected some complacency. I said, what about the young man of 23 who went into hospital to have an ingrowing toenail removed and died of septicaemia, caused by MRSA, a short time afterwards?
We have among us, in your Lordships' House, a living witness who is in the prime of life but nearly lost it from MRSA. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has given me permission to relate his experience in this important debate.
The noble Lord returned from a visit to Africa and had to be treated in hospital for a tropical disease. When in Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, the noble Lord developed MRSA. Antibiotics were given through a cannula and drip, which is thought to be the cause of MRSA entering the bloodstream. The noble Lord was then found to be resistant to vancomycin. He had eight antibiotics and septicaemia in both sides of his body. The tropical disease was cured but the noble Lord was fighting for his life due to a hospital-acquired infection. I am pleased—I am very pleased—that the noble Lord won his case on that occasion, but it was touch and go.
Antibiotic-resistant infections have become a huge challenge. For years, there have been hospital cover-ups, and priority has not been given to make hospitals
780
safe places. Once when I was in hospital, I asked the young man cleaning my room if he had ever cleaned the dust from under the beds. He answered me, "Nobody ever asked me".
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important issue tonight. It is rather ironic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, that so many people are getting so nervous about the relatively minor problem of SARS—do not mistake me, I am not in any way taking the deaths of people from that infection lightly—while ignoring the enemy within, as it were. As my noble friend has reminded us, MRSA is a killer, and a major one.
In this debate, and especially in view of the number of experts who will speak to us, I want to share my experience as a patient. When I said I was grateful to be here tonight, I meant that most sincerely, since I, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, am a sufferer and, as you see, a recoverer from MRSA.
In the seven months I spent in the Middlesex Hospital in 2001, I had MRSA for most of the time. I want to tell your Lordships about that experience and offer some ideas about the lessons I and others can learn from it.
I am pretty sure that I can pinpoint the moment when I became infected. That is a moment for which I feel gratitude, not blame. I was suffering a complete body sepsis after surgery for cancer and a bad reaction to chemotherapy drugs. Admitted to the hospital as an emergency on Christmas Eve, the doctors despaired of my life and told my family to prepare for the worst. Then a wonderful and courageous surgeon told my family that he was prepared to operate. I say courageous, because many surgeons would be too aware of their mortality rate batting average to suggest such a course of action in an apparently hopeless case, even if it had not been Christmas Day. Although he could offer a less than 1 per cent chance of survival, without the surgery the outcome was certain death. So my family, knowing that I would always take the high-risk option, agreed.
Another problem then presented itself, since I was so ill that even moving me to the operating theatre would surely kill me. They decided to operate in the room that I was occupying in intensive care. There was no time to ensure the sterility of the room, of course—they did the best they could in the short time available—but I think that I can be fairly sure that there was the source of my infection.
That operation was not the end of the story, of course; much more surgery and many months of devoted care were to follow. However, your Lordships will not be entirely surprised to know that had I myself been conscious enough to make the decision, the risk of getting MRSA would have been one which I too would have been prepared to take in those circumstances.
I tell that story to illustrate the complex nature of the decisions that NHS staff have to take, often with very little time to spare, often with lives at stake, often

781
involving great risk, and often weighing one least worst option against another. I, too, join the calls for more vigilance against the spread of this dreadful infection, but we must always remember the practical circumstances of those who are responsible for patient care.
I cannot fault the precautions that the staff in intensive care took to try to prevent the spread of infection. Such few visitors as were allowed to me were always told about washing their hands, wearing aprons and applying disinfectant gel. Of course, ward rounds do involve doctors and other staff moving from bed to bed, sudden emergencies arise and deliveries of supplies are absolutely essential. When one moves from intensive care to a ward, those precautions are even more problematic. Visitors have free access to most wards at most times of the day. There are not always handy basins for people to wash their hands; patients go endlessly to X-ray, to physio, to ultrasound, which all offer opportunities for infection to spread. But these visits are essential, of course.
Your Lordships may be surprised to hear me say that M RSA was a great friend to me and my devoted family in some ways. It required me to be barrier nursed, which in turn required a side ward. That could be quite cosy, as I could have my radio and TV, my visitors and my endless undignified examinations in some privacy. But there were only two side rooms on the whole of the ward, so what happens if more than two patients need barrier nursing? There were times when I had to be on the open ward and the beds there were pretty close together. But when you are immediately post-operative, the nurses need to keep you under close surveillance, and the side ward with its closed door is not then the safest place, in spite of the risk of infection.
If a crash call comes when a nurse or doctor is attending a patient, and they know that their colleague is alone at the other end of the ward, washing their hands and changing their apron may not be the first thing on their minds. If there is only one night sister or house doctor on call for a large group of wards at three in the morning and a new line or ventilator is urgently needed, it is perhaps understandable that hygiene takes second place.
If a patient is unable to eat for months on end, as I was, the only means of keeping them alive is via a Hickman line putting food into the blood stream. By their very nature, such lines become infected after a few weeks. However, one then has to balance the risks of sending the patient back into the theatre for more surgery, because a new line has to be put in under general anaesthetic, against the risk of the spread of the infection.
I do not offer these examples of difficult decision making as excuses, but simply to ensure that we never lose sight of the difficulties faced by the staff to whom I and many others owe their lives.
The best way of avoiding MRSA is undoubtedly not to go into hospital at all or, if one must go, to stay as short a time as possible. In that regard, the Government's
782
policies are to be validated: increased co-operation between health and social services, shortening the time it takes to arrange care in the community, which we hope will be the result of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Bill. That is especially important for older people who have orthopaedic surgery. In their postoperative period they are especially prone to infection, and it is notoriously difficult to overcome. Moreover, most people want to return home as soon as possible.
New technology systems exist that enable health and social care staff to use their time in the most effective, patient-centred way. As well as in-home systems, we are now able to give on-call GPs access to minimum data on patients to allow them to assess patients seen as an emergency in their own home, instead of admitting them to an A&E department. Therefore, we can provide monitoring at home, thus avoiding the risk of hospitalisation.
Another very important element in the fight against hospital-based infections to which the Government are committed is the development of small diagnostic and treatment centres—DTCs. These are already established in some parts of the country, and I have seen them operating effectively in the United States. They specialise in cold surgery and patients are in and out in a day. I am sure that the development of these centres to enable patients to have surgery without the risk of infection will be an important factor in fighting MRSA.
As one district nurse said to me, one thing that we can say about MRSA is that people never get it in the community. She was right. Hospitals are the culprits, as we have heard tonight. So we must proceed on two important fronts. We must improve hygiene in hospitals and continue to fund appropriate research. But we must keep people out of hospital as much as possible by looking at other forms of care which will not only preserve them from infection but also offer them treatment and care that fits their lifestyle, instead of expecting them to fit in with hospitals' routines and culture.
I am extremely grateful to be recovered in health and that I did not die of MRSA or any of the many other things which might have killed me. My devotion to the NHS, which was already strong, is, as your Lordships can imagine, unshakeable now. So I hope that we can all approach the undoubtedly challenging task of tackling MRSA. I hope that we can do so in a way that offers help, not blame, to the NHS and its skilled and devoted staff.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on drawing the attention of your Lordships' House and the Government to this troublesome infection which has recently become more common in our hospitals, is more difficult to treat and undoubtedly contributes to an increasing number of deaths. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Masham, for sharing their personal experience and adding realism to the debate.

783
Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus is a problematic infection acquired in hospital. According to the Public Health Laboratory Service, which monitors the extent of such infections in Britain's hospitals, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, MRSA infections in England and Wales increased by 50 per cent, from about 4,800 cases in 2001, to more than 7,000 last year. Vancomycin is the drug of last resort for treating patients, particularly in hospital, with postoperative infection. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, described in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, some cases of MRSA are showing signs of developing resistance to Vancomycin. Britain's first case of VRSA—Vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus—was reported only last year. That was the first fully Vancomycin resistant strain of bacteria. As a result, doctors are faced with a very difficult-to-treat bacterial infection that can cause death.
Hospital-acquired infections have been greatly underestimated and they are increasing every year. Bacteriologists such as Professor Hugh Pennington estimate that hospital-acquired infections kill around 5,500 patients annually and contribute to the deaths of another 11,000. Some members of the public have proposed that the spread of MRSA may be the result of dirty hospitals with poor levels of cleanliness. The Government have rightly set up their Clean Hospital Programme to tackle the problem. However, a new study found that all 40 hospitals with the worst MRSA infection rates passed cleanliness tests. Two thirds of hospitals with the worst record for controlling MRSA infection had won a "green light" rating for cleanliness, while the remaining third were classified as adequate with an "amber" light.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned the study by Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, who looked at 20 specialist and 20 acute hospitals with the highest rates of infection. He said that the Clean Hospital Programme covers 19 different standards of which only one is about cleanliness and none about the control of infection. Mr Burstow said that it proved that not enough was being done to tackle the problem of rising MRSA infections in hospital.
Stringent measures to isolate patients with MRSA infections would control its spread in hospital wards. However, common measures such as hospital doctors and nurses washing their hands scrupulously before and after handling postoperative patients should be implemented. We have heard about the problems that can arise when patients are very ill and that is not done. Epidemiological evidence concludes that bacteria transmitted by the hands of people who care for inpatients are a major contributing factor to hospital infections. Effective hand decontamination results in significant reductions in the carriage of potential bacteria on the hands and would lead to a reduction in infected patients and death from MRSA infections. I can testify to the importance of this simple measure from my professional experience as a paediatrician caring for new-born infants.
784
Soap and water are as effective as hand-washing preparations containing antimicrobial agents for decontaminating hands. In order to reduce chaffing of the skin through soap and water, alcohol-based hand rub can be used with good effect. Good quality hand-washing by hospital medical staff needs therefore to be monitored to prevent and control infections, particularly in the care of patients such as babies and very ill people who have catheters fitted.
Another issue of importance in the campaign against MRSA infections is that of the careful use of antibiotics particularly in primary care. The Department of Health has printed and distributed information for patients on the appropriate use of antibiotics. It should be available in GP clinic waiting rooms. I have a copy in my hand.
Antibiotics may be unnecessarily demanded by patients for common coughs and colds usually caused by viruses for which they have no therapeutic effect. As large numbers of prescriptions for antibiotics are dispensed in primary care, more should be done to inform patients, nurses and doctors that antibiotics are not effective for treating common viral infections.
General practitioners should be encouraged to take care when prescribing antibiotics for their patients. In some primary care trusts, including the one with which I am involved, this is achieved through seminars where pharmacists inform doctors of trends in prescribing and evidence of good practice.
Patients who have been prescribed antibiotics appropriately should be encouraged to complete their course and not stop when they feel better. A full course of treatment will help prevent bacteria from developing resistance to common antibiotics.
Best practice in treating bacterial infections both in the community and in hospitals is well known. Standard principles for preventing hospital-acquired infections were updated and distributed by the Department of Health and published in The Journal of Hospital Infection two years ago in a supplement. It is easy to read and is available on the Internet.
These measures needed to prevent infections acquired in hospital are also not rocket science. But effective control and treatment of infections and preventing their spread requires all hospital staff to keep to a routine of hand-washing and patients to cooperate by completing their courses of treatment with prescribed antibiotics. Prevention is better than cure. This adage is absolutely essential for MRSA infections. I look forward to the Minister's reply on these important issues to reduce MRSA infections in hospitals.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as he so often does, my noble friend Lord Ashley has put his finger on an important unsolved problem facing the National Health Service.
As other noble Lords have said, MRSA is not the only healthcare acquired infection but it is the most intractable and is often severe, causing up to an estimated 5,000 deaths and, where it was just a contributory factor, 15,000 deaths. Those are slightly

785
different figures from those given by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, but they are near enough to show that that is probably the rate. What is more, as all noble Lords who have spoken have said, it is increasing rapidly. From 1992 to 2001, the proportion of methicillin resistant staphylococcus among all staph aureus infections cultured by the PHLS rose from 2 per cent to 42 per cent. The reasons for that are not difficult to find. Antibiotic resistance increases where antibiotics are frequently and often inappropriately prescribed. So hospitals where the most severely ill are treated provide an ideal environment.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee in 1998 which reported on resistance to antibiotics. In fact, the noble Baroness prompted that inquiry because of her repeated parliamentary Questions on the topic. It is gratifying that several of the recommendations of that report five years ago have been acted on. However, in its follow-up report three years later, the committee stated in paragraph 24 on page 7, with regard to the requirements that hospitals should report MRSA incidents:
"We are surprised that this has taken three years; the bacterium has not been idle during this time. We are nonetheless pleased that it is now to go ahead".
As the Minister observed when we interviewed her,
"publishing these figures will concentrate the minds of Chief Executives of hospital trusts".
Although the Department of Health is only too acutely aware of the problems of increasing resistance of micro-organisms to antibiotics, especially MRSA, the changes needed to slow the increase or reverse it need to be taken, as other noble Lords have pointed out, at front-line level, through changes in behaviour or management, mainly by clinical or cleaning staff. Strategies, guidelines and circulars by the department, however well written, are only bureaucratic instruments. Although they are a necessary precursor to changes in action at ground level, they are no substitute for that action, which is what matters.
I am sure that my noble friend will give us an account of the many excellent initiatives taken by the department, but we need to know how far they have led to action on the ground. To find that out, we need adequate and accurate monitoring or, on occasions, specially commissioned research. For instance, I understand that a team from Thames Valley University has carried out a systematic review of how infection control guidelines are implemented. Can my noble friend give us any information or a progress report on that?
As the Select Committee showed in its 1998 report, an attitude among prescribing doctors prior to the 1980s led to antibiotics being over-freely prescribed. Doctors believed—I think that I can remember it myself—that if resistance to one antibiotic developed, another would be discovered. The Select Committee's report had a salutary effect, as did the department's monograph, The path of least resistance. For the past few years, there has been a fall in the prescribing of antibiotics by 9 per cent among GPs, and a more cautious policy in many hospitals.
786
A further factor, as almost all noble Lords who have spoken have said, has been a fall in standards of ward hygiene. That is not always due to careless attitudes among nurses and doctors or poor work by cleaners. Hand washing between treating patients is often difficult to fit in if the sink is at the other end of the ward and there is extreme pressure of work, which is of course too often the case in acute hospitals. Rapid turnover of patients and more than 100 per cent bed occupancy makes it difficult to clean beds and equipment thoroughly. We have had examples of that from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. Those faulty practices are not desirable or excusable, but the present hospital environment, pressure of work and occasional low morale among those under pressure does not help.
It is in that kind of setting that the work of infection control teams is not easy, although vital. The liaison nurses who are supposed to see that good practice prevails in their ward or department may not have the time, or the status among their colleagues—that is quite important—to be effective. However, even in those circumstances, infection control nurses still play a vital role. Chief executives of trusts increasingly realise that the work of those teams is cost-effective in reducing the average length of hospital admissions.
The results of the first year's surveillance of MRSA bacteraemia for 2001, which was mentioned by other noble Lords, were published last year. The highest levels were in acute teaching hospitals in Birmingham and the South East. That is probably because their case mix contained a high proportion of often elderly patients with complex problems. I do not of course include my noble friend in that category; she had the complex problems but she is not elderly. Some people may have been referred from nursing homes or residential homes and brought their infections with them. I believe that some residential homes act as reservoirs. That is certainly the case in the United States. My noble friend Lady Masham may be pleased that in the bacteraemia surveillance study Stoke Mandeville had one of the lowest rates in the country.
Despite the Question of my noble friend Lord Ashley, I shall be surprised if the Minister will describe any completely new approaches for MRSA control. Many plans are in train—for instance, to improve the scope of surveillance, to include general practice and the community, to increase the number of infection-control nurses, to increase the number of the excellent "modern matrons" and to ensure that hospital hygiene is improved. There are specific policies for chasing that up.
I wonder whether the Minister can really show us that we are turning the problem around. Research to develop new antibiotics, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is needed. That anticipates the day—I am afraid that we have already reached that day—when MRSA becomes VMR SA. But even if a new antibiotic were found to replace Vancomycin, that would probably lead only to a temporary respite.

787
We need basic high-quality infection control, as in the days before antibiotics were available, and careful, "prudent" prescribing. Those two approaches will probably remain the best ways of tackling the problem for the foreseeable future.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for introducing this important debate. I must declare an interest because I am a member of the science and technology sub-committee that is currently examining ways of fighting infections. My remarks do not in any way pre-empt the report. I am concerned that by focusing only on MRSA we may be missing the main point. We should concentrate on all healthcare-acquired infections and, within that, hospital-acquired infections across the board.
The noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Rea, outlined the problem but it is unclear whether MRSA is a reliable surrogate marker for healthcare-acquired infections. It may be a distractor from some other sources of infections. We need to know whether an organism is a patient commensal or acquired when it causes a septicaemia. We do not have robust epidemiological data from the community as a whole or from across hospital staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, requested, research in epidemiological surveys is needed; we also need to determine the amount of antibiotic resistance. There is great concern that antibiotic resistance may and probably will increase. Containing antibiotic prescribing may become more difficult as prescribing is extended to groups other than doctors in the healthcare team.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, said, education is required—it is done for general practitioners—but perhaps education of the public at large is needed. A recent copy of The Big Issue, produced by the homeless, contained an excellent article on the dangers of overusing antibiotics. I believe that the publishers should be commended because they were reaching a group of the population who need that information.
We need to collect robust data on infections and clinical outcomes and not only on the instances of infections. We need to know how many infections lead to death. Laboratory data are not enough. But the importance of laboratories must not be underestimated. We know that there are difficulties in recruiting and retaining laboratory staff as medical scientific officers, yet they are the backbone of the surveillance that will inform clinicians.
Vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus may be much more dangerous and is emerging horribly rapidly. If a person has methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, it may be possible to treat him with vancomycin, but if he is vancomycin resistant, he really is in very deep water.
Setting crude targets, which unfortunately have caught the public's eye, may be self-defeating. If a hospital is coping badly with infections, it is relatively easy for there to be a 10 per cent improvement. But if
788
that hospital is already doing well, it may be quite difficult to achieve a 10 per cent improvement. If one takes care with blood cultures and they are produced as frequently as they should be, then there may be a very high pick-up rate, whereas if they are not dealt with as carefully as they should be there may be a distortedly low pick-up rate.
The problem with figures is that they need careful interpretation. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a quick example. I was fortunate enough to have the data for 2002 on the 18 hospitals in Wales. One hospital had the sixth-from-lowest rate per 1,000 bed days for methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus—the ordinary staphylococcus aureus—in blood cultures. Therefore, it is doing well. But that same hospital comes 12th out of the 18 for MRSA bacteraemia per 1,000 bed days. That is different from some of the other hospitals around. Therefore, one needs to ask what is going on and why, and that is quite complex. Many factors need to be considered: indwelling lines have been alluded to. They are generally associated with sicker patients. Of course, the risk of any bacteraemia is higher in a patient who is immuno-compromised.
There is a great need for good buildings—isolation rooms, adequate space between beds and enough sinks. One sink per bed is the dream of most healthcare workers. Most people are working in places where it is extremely hard to provide care and to carry out their jobs as well as they would like to do. My own ward has lamentably overcrowded bed areas with inadequate sinks. But the major refurbishment, which is badly needed and long overdue, has been competing with the installation of an MRI scanner, the chemotherapy pharmacy bill, covering for staff sickness and locum payments, and so on. We were recently turned down for an NOF bid, and that has left the staff profoundly demoralised. I fear that our infection rates will climb as a result because it is very hard to maintain good infection control at all times, as has already been alluded to.
Since April 2001, a mandatory scheme in Wales has recorded the occurrence of bacteraemias due to all staphylococcus aureus. A recent important Department of Health initiative across the UK, involving all four countries, required mandatory reporting. That has focused on orthopaedic cases, but it now needs to be broadened and rolled out across all areas of healthcare and to cover all healthcare-acquired infections.
We must be able to identify through research the critical areas where interventions have a clinical impact and where matters are improved through the interventions taken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, these are complex issues and no one measure will be the magic bullet. For example, each surgeon needs to know the data on his or her patients for all hospital-acquired infections. However, providing all that data requires resources.
Hygiene and visible cleanliness must not be confused. It is possible that when cleaning is done in haste in an effort to meet targets, organisms are spread

789
around rather than being left undisturbed to die in a pile of dust or sweet wrappers on the floor, which would give the visible appearance of a place being dirty. One needs to have time and resources to do even the cleaning required to ensure that one does not inadvertently spread organisms because they are not visible to the naked eye.
In understanding infection, comparative areas need to share data, identify the reason for their rates and look at the details of their clinical practice, such as the dressings which are used, the way they are put on and so forth. We may need to go away from the current pharmaceutical industry and not put our hope in new antibiotics. All organisms will mutate rapidly and develop resistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke on this theme at the start of the debate. It may be that old remedies for contained superficial infections, such as venous ulcers, should be used. The use of things such as iodine, honey, yoghurt, icing sugar or maggots to debride necrotic wounds may in the long term be a safer way to go, but long-term research and surveillance is needed. Academic microbiology departments must be encouraged and increased. It is only through high-quality research that the answers will be found. Crude targets have a habit of rebounding badly and consuming resources to appease headline writers rather than improving patient outcomes, and it is on patient outcomes that we need to collect data.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for initiating the debate. I am also grateful to your Lordships for permitting me to speak during the gap. I declare an interest as chairman of the independent Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in North London.
I spoke today to Dr Bill Chattopadhyay, who is a consultant microbiologist at the North Middlesex Hospital. He is also a consultant at the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth and an inspector of the Clinical Pathological Accreditation (CPA). He is acknowledged as one of the foremost experts on MRSA in this country. He suggested I made two very simple points, which I address to the Minister for her consideration and, I hope, implementation.
The first is the washing of hands continually and between dealing with patients. Those points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Pitkeathley, and predictably and at some length by such a distinguished practitioner as the noble Lord, Lord Chan. However, the point Dr Chattaphady wants to make is that in his view there is a lamentably low priority given to this simple subject in the training of junior doctors and health professionals. I hope that that can be implemented in future programmes.
The second point he wants to make concerns the acute shortage of side rooms in hospitals, which are important for the isolation of MRSA. I hope that the department, in its future planning of new hospitals and
790
the refurbishment of existing ones, will give high priority to the provision of side rooms. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for initiating the debate, for the way he introduced it in such a commanding and comprehensive way which allows us to debate the subject, and for eliciting the speeches that have been made by other noble Lords, which have been a very rich mixture of personal experience and professional expertise.
The view shared by all noble Lords is that it has been clear for some time that hospital-acquired infection in this country is not under proper control. Indeed, now it appears to be spreading beyond the hospital environment. There are clearly major consequences involved in hospital-acquired infection. Patients who have or get HAI stay in hospital on average about three times longer than non-HAI patients. That is equivalent to an extra 14 days per HAI patient. So this is a major cause of delayed discharge. We have heard some pretty harrowing stories from all Benches in this House. The statistics are that an HAI patient is seven times more likely to die in hospital than an uninfected patient. That is a pretty horrifying statistic.
In February 2000, the National Audit Office published a highly critical report on the control of infection in acute hospitals in England. The NAO found that healthcare-acquired infections caused more than 5,000 deaths per year and cost the NHS £1 billion. It subsequently appeared that—and many noble Lords have alluded to this—the rates of M RSA in 2001 were nearly 50 times higher than they were in 1992.
Several noble Lords have talked about the voluntary reporting statistics. Of course we now have the mandatory statistics which are in many ways even more horrifying. The mandatory figure for the six-month period at the beginning of 2002 stands at 3,515 for MRSA cases. If that trend continues throughout the whole year there will be 7,000 cases of MRSA.
In response to that critical NAO report, the Government responded by initiating what they called a "clean-up drive" for hospitals in the autumn of 2000. That campaign—and this is what I want to dwell upon tonight—was comprehensively taken to task by my honourable friend Paul Burstow MP in his report Now wash your hands, which was published in September last year. My honourable friend's concern about this matter arises directly as a result of his spokesmanship and concern for the health and welfare of older people, who are particularly affected by HAI.
The campaign was allocated a sum of £60 million to finance the clean-up of NHS hospitals. Patient Environment Action Teams (PEAT) were formed to inspect wards. These bodies comprised volunteers from within the NHS and some patient groups. Their responsibility was to grade the trust as "red- for poor, "yellow" for acceptable or "green" for excellent.

791
In order to do that, the teams looked at 19 categories. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, alluded to that. But only one category pertained to hygiene or cleanliness and none was about the control of infection. The other standards were made up of such arbitrary subjects as the appearance of linen and dÐcor, the tidy state of public areas, even CCTV in car parks and easy-to-read signage. A hospital that scored one on cleanliness but scored highly in other areas could therefore be rated highly. It is therefore possible for a hospital to be designated "green", or excellent, because it is well decorated and there are clear signposts, even if it receives a low score on cleanliness.
It is obviously appropriate that hospitals should provide a good, safe environment for patients, but for that to be characterised as conforming to standards of "cleanliness" is misleading. It means that the traffic light system seems to have been more about public relations than infection control.
In autumn 2000, all NHS trusts were inspected by PEAT. The results of the inspections were not published but were leaked to The Times in January 2001. The inspections were repeated in the spring and the autumn of 2001, with only 42 "red" hospitals in the spring and none in the autumn. When they were published in October last year, the Secretary of State claimed:
"The cleaning campaign in England's hospitals is working. In April I announced national standards for hospital cleaning and that by autumn no hospital would have poor standards of cleanliness. We have got there".
The picture painted by my honourable friend's survey carried out within NHS hospitals at the end of last year, which was sent out to all NHS hospitals, is very different. The survey revealed a shocking lack of resources for infection control teams; 61 per cent of respondents felt that they did not have adequate resources to carry out their role effectively; and many highlighted the need for more administrative support in order to provide valid information on infection rates. There were alarmingly low ratios of infection-control staff to beds. There were equally alarming responses on key areas such as handwashing and cleanliness of staff uniforms.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to cap it all, new research from my honourable friend shows that out of the 40 hospitals with the most MRSA cases, not one was classified as a "dirty" hospital under the Government's "Clean Hospital Programme" which Ministers championed as tackling the crisis. The analysis undertaken by my honourable friend looked at the 20 specialist and 20 acute hospitals with the highest rates of infection of MRSA. He found that 28 hospitals were classified as "green" and 12 as "amber", despite having the highest rates of infection in England.
Clearly, the situation cannot continue in this way. Ministers must stop giving the impression that they are on top of this problem and acknowledge that the "Clean Hospital Programme" is nothing of the kind. It
792
is giving patients and families a false sense of security when the Government are not on top of the MRSA problem.
What needs to be done? Infection control must be placed even higher on the Government's agenda. There must be a sustained effort to maintain cleanliness standards, not just a one-off, gimmicky clean-up drive. Infection control teams must be given the resources and authority to undertake their jobs effectively. During our debate on SARS on Monday, the noble Baroness replied to me by saying that of course resources must be provided for infection control teams, but the fact is that there must be an audit, whether by CHI or the SHAs, to ensure that money is getting through and that the teams are properly resourced.
There should be independent inspection of hospital cleanliness and infection control—perhaps by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—which would give an objective, national picture of the cleanliness of England's hospitals, so that patients can be sure that everything necessary is being done. As several noble Lords have mentioned, there should also be an intensive drive to look for alternatives to antibiotics. I remember five years ago, when we debated the Select Committee's report in 1998, raising the question of progress on bacteriophages. The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has funded research with £50,000. What research have the Government or the Medical Research Council funded to any significant extent in that area, which seems such a promising line to pursue?
The vigourous tackling of HAI, and MRSA in particular, would do wonders to increase capacity and lower mortality in the health service. Not enough is being done and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.56 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for giving us an opportunity to debate an issue that has very serious implications for patients in the National Health Service. The noble Lord brought the facts home to us most powerfully.
Hospital-acquired infections are no joke. For the individual, their effects vary from mild discomfort to prolonged disability and, in some very serious cases, death. The statistics for such matters are always difficult to collate but, in 2000, the National Audit Office estimated that at any one time about 9 per cent of in-patients had a hospital-acquired infection, which equates to at least 100,000 infections a year.
Apart from the cost to human health, there is of course a significant attendant cost to the NHS itself, a good proportion of which—perhaps a third, according to the PHLS—could probably be avoided by better hospital procedures. Because of that, there is an opportunity cost in terms of beds that could otherwise be occupied by patients waiting for hospital treatment.
Those rather depressing facts form the general backdrop to this debate. If we consider hospital-acquired infections as a whole, MRSA accounts for

793
about a quarter of them. It causes wound and bloodstream infections, which can be particularly serious. Those who are debilitated, sick or who have weakened immune systems are susceptible to it. Anyone who has an open wound, such as a bedsore, or a tube going into their body, is potentially prey to it.
It is not for people such as us, mere parliamentarians—of course, I exempt the medical parliamentarians—to try to tell NHS managers and the medical professions how to do their job. I venture to say that it is not for Ministers to do that either. We know what the NAO has said about how MRSA is transmitted and how such transmission might be better prevented. We can note that with considerable interest. We can welcome the fact that there are infection control guidelines and that CHI will monitor how they are implemented.
The job for the Government is perhaps threefold. It is, surely, to facilitate the compilation of reliable data to enable everyone to be clear about the nature and scale of the problem; to ensure that systems are in place that hold the NHS to account; and to facilitate and encourage research that may one day lead to an elimination of the infection.
On statistics, the Government have made a useful start by making it mandatory for all hospitals to report MRSA infections. The first comprehensive set of annual figures was published last October. What was interesting—and alarming—about those figures was the large increase in the rate and number of infections compared with the old voluntary reporting methods. The statistics also revealed considerable regional variations in prevalence, with London, for example, registering three times the rate seen in the West Midlands. It is clear that, taken as a whole, the UK's record compares unfavourably with that of every other country in the EU apart, I believe, from Greece. That is not a cause for pride, but it is at least a help that we are beginning to get a feel for how extensive the problem is. We have a benchmark.
As we heard, blood infection rates from MRSA vary considerably between hospitals. The rates tend to be higher in the South East and lower in the North. A relatively high rate seen in one hospital is not necessarily a reflection of that hospital's clinical procedures. We must always bear in mind the case mix, the levels of risk typically seen in the hospital's patients and the number of patients transferred from other hospitals or care homes when already infected with MRSA.
It is therefore difficult to compare one hospital with another on a crude basis, but we ought to be able to monitor trends. It is too early to know what progress has been made since March 2002, which marked the end of the first year's mandatory reporting. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, last month quoted figures that possibly indicated a levelling out of infection rates in the nine months to last September. Since then, press reports have shown a substantial leap in the rates between 2001 and 2002. The PHLS apparently detected a rising trend; the Department of Health, on the other hand, was more cautious in its interpretation.
794
Whatever trends emerge, it is obviously important that the figures submitted by acute trusts, as in any other area of data-gathering, are subject to audit. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me how that is being done.
There are still a few antibiotics that can successfully cure MRSA in its more common manifestations. However, as reports come in of bacteria that are resistant even to the last resort antibiotic—Vancomycin—we do not need doctors to tell us that we are living on the edge of a very dangerous precipice. In California, a new strain of MRSA is being spread with alarming ease among healthy people outside hospitals. Although the bug is currently treatable, the fear is that it will soon acquire resistance. It is welcome that much is being done to disseminate good clinical practice by means of workshops in acute trusts and the publication of manuals. I am also conscious that NICE guidelines for infection control and prevention are due for publication very soon if they have not already been published. It would be helpful to hear about those from the Minister.
More research is needed. MRSA is a scourge affecting just about every country in the world. Can the Minister give any indication of what research programmes are being conducted in the UK, or abroad, in this field? I read recently of some promising work being done at Strathclyde University. It involves introducing water-borne viruses into dressings and stitches. Those benign viruses have been created to target and kill the three most common strains of MRSA found in UK hospitals. I understand that the initial trials are due to take place on animals and that if those are successful, studies on patients could be conducted within three years or so. The particular technique has been patented by the university and may have many other applications in combating infectious diseases.
Research is long term and its results uncertain. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is essential for there to be no defeatism about MRSA. A report by Eurosurveillance, a body funded by the European Commission, stated unequivocally that,
"it is possible to suppress and prevent MRSA from becoming endemic in hospitals".
It then cites the rigorous isolation procedures in force in Dutch hospitals, which have notched up an impressive record in preventing the spread of MRSA once detected. It is good to see such an authoritative body being so categorical and positive.
But positive thinking should never be obscured by false expectations. The public should not be led to believe—as I fear that they have been—that salvation lies in improving standards of hospital cleanliness. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, it is striking that 13 of the top 20 worst offending trusts for MRSA received the highest cleanliness rating. Hospital cleanliness is vital, but there is no direct correlation between the general standards of cleanliness on wards and the prevalence of MRSA, and Ministers should not allow anyone to believe that there is.

795
The direction of travel that the Government have charted for the NHS will enable difficult problems such as MRSA to be tackled even more effectively. I refer to the drive towards greater local accountability, the devolution of budgets and, in particular, the foundation trusts. Best practice must be disseminated, but it will make its presence felt most effectively if hospital doctors, nurses and managers claim ownership of it and can see its direct relevance for them, for their hospital and for their patients.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke for creating, in his usual far-sighted and committed way, another opportunity for us to address one of the most serious problems facing hospitals. As I expected, we have had an expert debate. There has been lateral thinking, as well as expert thinking, and I am grateful to your Lordships who brought to the debate not only expertise and great knowledge but telling personal experience of being in hospital. The desire to make abstract generalisations falls away when one hears about people's actual experiences in hospital. I am grateful that noble Lords were able to share that with us, and I am delighted that they are with us to do so.
I shall scrap the first few pages of my speech, as the issues have been covered so admirably in so many different ways. I start by saying that, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, we have robust strategies to reduce infection rates, but we must acknowledge that the best practice cannot prevent everything. My noble friend said that she could not fault the staff, but our knowledge suggests that we can prevent only about 30 per cent of hospital-acquired infections. We must examine the issue, and I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, made. She said that we must not forget that the context is all hospital-acquired infections. That is important.
In the short time that I have, I want to focus on action and implementation. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that this is a priority for action and not simply for the promotion and production of guidelines and advice. I want to deal with that.
My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the potential for new strains to emerge. We must acknowledge that MRSA infections are a particular problem not only because they are difficult to treat but because they spread, not least because we have been so clever in inventing new technologies and new treatments and delivering them through the National Health Service in the past 20 years. In a way, our success in developing invasive devices has created new and easy routes of entry for infection. There are new strains. I think the noble Earl referred to recent community outbreaks in the United States caused by the Panton Valentine leukocidin or PVL-producing strain. It is extremely nasty and produces painful boils and skin abscesses. The Health Protection Agency recently summarised the data available on that strain and is investigating the
796
occurrence. So far, there is no evidence to show that we should be concerned here. We have no particular cause for concern.
I shall briefly consider the issue of data. This is the first year of our mandatory reporting system. It is important that we are clear that it has been introduced, because of the unreliability of the voluntary data collecting system that we have had to date. Noble Lords quoted differing figures of 4,000 and 7,000 cases. The figures produced in the first year of the mandatory system showed 7,227 reports of MRSA. I think that the 4,000 figure was for the same year but was based on the voluntary collection system.
Therefore, it is important to be clear. As the noble Lord said, that illustrates that one of the chief tasks of government is to collect proper data. The media do not appreciate this. The reference made to recent reports in the media, which suggested that there had been a great hike in the number of cases, was the result of monthly figures being cited as weekly figures. So we must be extremely careful in what we read and how we interpret information.
We cannot fail to acknowledge that our rates of MRSA are high compared with northern Europe. It may be that this is, in part, because of our ability to treat more vulnerable people, such as the elderly, with new techniques. It may be because isolation is not easy. I think that noble Lords who raised the need for isolation would agree that it depends entirely on the circumstances and facilities of the hospital. Certainly, in our new-build hospitals, built under consumer guidance, there is more space and provision for hand-washing. I am sure that we shall see the evidence of that as the service is provided.
Of course, we recognise the pressure of life on the wards. My noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Pitkeathley gave some very telling examples of what that means. It is not an excuse to say that hygiene can be short-circuited, but it is an illustration of the pressure. Some of these issues are being addressed, such as smaller wards, more space around beds and improved procedures. But we must ensure that the guidelines issued in January 2001 are implemented, that infection control and basic hygiene, at the heart of good management, are in place and that the vanguard infection control teams are there.
The implementation workshops are a very serious attempt to ensure that people who need to be refreshed and refocused on this work get the chance to be retrained and obtain additional advice. The workshops are just starting and will involve front-line hospital staff.
I turn now to the impact that reports—not least the Health Select Committee report on which the noble Lord played such a key role and the NAO report—had on our strategy. As a result we introduced our first national strategy for getting ahead of infection, entitled, Getting Ahead of the Curve. That is now being translated into local targeted action plans which we are expecting to be ready in the next few months. They will set out different levels of operation nationally and locally—as well as internationally—on how we build on current work that is under way. Therefore, we have

797
the national strategy and we have more robust data. It is mandatory surveillance and is about getting the right information to the right people.
It is important to understand that that is the first step. It will provide the means to monitor and tackle hospital acquired infections as a whole. As it develops, we shall be able to look at a whole range of issues. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines are expected to be published in the summer. We are confident that they will make a difference to the way in which people in the community, in care homes and in intermediate care are able to draw on the experience of hospital infection work in the acute sector and that there will be a much more effective transfer of information.
How do we ensure that this reaches the heart of the problem? Many noble Lords asked how we know that our policies are working. We already require chief executives, through the controls assurance standard, to ensure that effective policies are in place and are implemented. However, we recognised that more needed to be done. We recognised that chief executives had to be focused. That is why healthcare-associated infection is in the NHS performance management system. That has been done. Those procedures, MRSA improvement score and infection control are now performance indicators. They will contribute to the star ratings and will ensure that attention is focused on infection control. That must be the most effective thing we can do.
We are seeking to build partnerships by working with the professions to roll out practical solutions. I cannot go through all the activities because they form rather a long list, but I shall mention the position in relation to hand hygiene. There is no doubt that good hand hygiene is absolutely critical. I can tell the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the National Patient Safety Agency has set up a project on hand hygiene, developing guidance for trusts on ways on improve compliance, although every trust should have its own policy. We are presently identifying pilot sites in order to gather even more information to feed back on better practice.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, other strategies must be employed, such as access to alcohol rubs. Such procedures are very simple, but effective. I take the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his long list of what can be done. Most important, however, is that all the information is brought together. Further work is being done to produce a national infection control manual which will bring together all the different elements of information and guidance. It will be on the Web to access.
798
On the issue of the over-prescription of antibiotics, I can tell all noble Lords who referred to this that our campaign on antibiotic prescribing and overuse is still in place. While I would not like to say that it has had a direct impact, we have seen a drop in GP prescribing. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley will appreciate that the campaign is up and running strongly.
Much emphasis has been placed on research during this debate. I could not agree more that we need more systematic research. We are spending around £4.7 million on research; of that, we have just put out a new call of £2.5 million for new proposals. We have commissioned, for example, new research on antimicrobial resistance. Furthermore, we have a commissioned health technology assessment re view of isolation screening policies which is to be published shortly. Southampton University Hospital Trust is looking at ways of developing a rapid test for MRSA. I did not know about the Strathclyde University research mentioned by the noble Earl. It sounds extremely interesting and we would like to follow it up. The ozone research mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is particularly interesting. It is not lateral thinking but I am sure that the department would want to look at the points raised by the noble Lord.
Turning to the points raised in regard to the pharmaceutical industry, we want to extend our dialogue across the industry. Although that is probably not enough for my noble friend Lord Ashley, it is evidence of our concern to work with the industry. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that hospital pharmacists have a key role to play in helping to reduce over-prescribing in hospitals.
Along with other noble Lords, while I take the point that there is no apparent correlation between increases in the rate of MRSA infection and poor levels of cleanliness, common sense would suggest that there could be a link. We intend to examine the existing evidence in more detail.
We are now seeing real changes in hospital procedures, being driven not least by the modern matrons and ward housekeepers. It is their job to ensure that someone is told to dust under the beds. Indeed, the public perception now is that hospital cleanliness is improving.
I hope that, with better knowledge, better measurement and better enforcement, along with collective and coherent action, we shall make a difference in seeking to reduce the incidence of this appalling infection.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Foyle Railway Museum
  Foyle Railway Museum
  Northern Ireland Arts Council
  Northern Ireland Arts Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Boyle Harbour Slurry Wall
  Boyle Harbour Slurry Wall
  Limerick Harbour
  Limerick Harbour
  Ulster-Scots Future Search Conference
  Ulster-Scots Future Search Conference
  China: North Korean Refugees
  China: North Korean Refugees
  Overseas Travel: Young People
  Overseas Travel: Young People
  Drug Offenders: Court Review Process
  Drug Offenders: Court Review Process
  Iraq: UK Treatment of Prisoners
  Iraq: UK Treatment of Prisoners
  Defence Bills Agency
  Defence Bills Agency
  Defence Vetting
  Defence Vetting
  Chemical Protection Programme
  Chemical Protection Programme
  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Gulf Region: British Armed Forces
  Gulf Region: British Armed Forces
  16 to 19 Year-olds: Cross-government Review of Financial Support
  16 to 19 Year-olds: Cross-government Review of Financial Support
  Child Poverty
  Child Poverty
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Haemophilia: Factor VIII and Factor IX Blood Products
  Haemophilia: Factor VIII and Factor IX Blood Products
  West Sussex Social Services: Safe House
  West Sussex Social Services: Safe House
  Traditional Chinese Medicine: Postponement of International Conference
  Traditional Chinese Medicine: Postponement of International Conference
  SARS
  SARS
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops